KILLING KENDALL JONES

Oh yes, that nasty Kendall Jones shot the oh-so charismatic creatures in Africa, and because we love those animals so, the only logical thing to do is set-up a snuff page where we can all celebrate our love and respect for Gaia's creation by sharing fantasies about killing a 19 year old cheerleader.

Yeah Team!

Click image to visit the Kill Kendal Jones snuff page

Once again the Anti-Hunters prove in whose souls the hatred, intolerance and evil really dwells. Slag-off at Catholic priests as much as you will, but it is fast becoming evident - and by their own hand - who we should really strive to keep our children safe from.

The FBI and ASIO aught to be tracking the origins of each and every threat posted on this page and each party should be banned from all occupations that deal with children. If these people have children of their own, they should be investigated by authorities to determine if they are teaching their kids that death threats are a responsible way to vent one's opposition to something.

I've said it before and I will keep on saying it...the people who hate guns and hunting, hate them because they have looked into their own souls and found them dark, festering, malignant places, and having made this discovery they fear what they themselves might be capable of if armed.

There are one or two facts that must weigh into the Kendall Jones discussion, if only so that people whose opinions are emoted rather than being formed as a process of intellect, have something to summarily dismiss.

FACT: Hunters of today are not responsible for the plight of threatened and endangered species of today. In fact in many countries hunters provide the principle funding for all wildlife management and recovery efforts.

FACT: In the US, hunters - not green groups nor wildlife foundations - pay for the vast majority of all wildlife conservation efforts.

FACT: Most African nations can ill-afford the cost of animal welfare/conservation/restoration efforts, the funding for which is provided almost exclusively by people like Kendall Jones i.e. hunters.

FACT: People who break the law in order to take animals in the wild are not hunters. They are known as poachers - repeat after me, poachers - and they are reviled by hunters every bit as much as they are hated by the anti-hunting fraternity.

FACT: People who are big on expressing indignation and hatred for trophy hunters are very small on donating money in sufficient quantity to support conservation efforts at the coalface. Left to the emoters, poachers would have pushed many species beyond the point of no return decades ago.

FACT: Many of the charismatic species that are threatened today are in that state, not due to trophy hunters, but rather due to the pressures of local villagers who are apt to kill the animals for their nuisance value. Animals are not hunted in National Parks, but in game reserves, which are also inhabited by people who once routinely killed elephants to prevent them trampling crops, and decimated lions for fear of their children‘s safety.

However, since legal and regulated trophy hunting’s growth in popularity, those same villagers now have an incentive to preserve these animals. Hunting also provides an income through the licensing process (much of which goes directly to villages for community development activities) which allows villagers to develop strategies/infrastructure to keep elephants and lions at bay. In short, the animals now have a value which makes their antics more tolerable, thanks solely to trophy hunting.

FACT: The consumables (meat etc) from trophy hunting activities is dispersed amongst the locals who own the land upon which the animal was taken. It is arrogance and stupidity that assumes that because cat and elephant are not on the menu at your home, they are not traditional fare elsewhere in the world.

FACT: The vast majority of animals taken by trophy hunters are cull animals. For a whole host of reasons, wildlife managers decided that individual animals must be removed from the environment for the good of gene pools or to otherwise increase the productivity of breading programs etc. These animals will die! They can be killed by wildlife managers at a cost to the program, or they can be killed by trophy hunters who pay for the privilege of the hunt and for the animal’s butchering, dispersal, preparation and mounting, all of which means money to the program and local people.

FACT: None of the animals hunted and harvested by Kendal Jones were endangered species.

FACT: The Rhino, which the media claims she shot, was in fact tranquilised so it could receive treatment for injuries sustained during a lion mauling.

FACT: Reports that she shot a cheetah are also false. The cat identified by the media as a cheetah is in fact a leopard. Cheetahs are endangered and therefore not hunted by Kendall or any other responsible hunter.

FACT: The vast majority of people who want to kill Kendall Jones and bring an end to big game hunting, have not, and will never contribute even as much as one thousandth of the funding she has contributed to conservation and community development programs that are making a real difference at the coalface.

FACT: It would be possible to put an end to trophy hunting in Africa tomorrow, and continue and perhaps even enhance conservation and restoration efforts, if only all the people who hate hunters so much would put their money where their oh-so-hateful mouths are and chip in a few thousand dollars each to the many programs that depend, completely, upon the money hunters currently contribute to wildlife conservation.

OPINION: People who think it is appropriate to speak of killing a 19 year-old girl because they do not approve of her culture and hunting activities, are every bit as foul, noxious, filthy, depraved and perverted as rock-spiders and those quaint little people who found personal validation and fulfilment in handing out towels at Auschwitz. 

Anyway, I'll get outaya way now....

Post scriptum: At 15:15 hours today, after a day of heated email communications and phone calls demanding that the snuff page be removed, Facebook finally saw the light of day and pulled it down. How long it will take the author to repost the hate page with a slightly less inflammatory title is anyone's guess, but one can rely on Facebook to tolerate that new page and the evil sentiment expressed on it, just as long as its promoters don't include words like 'kill', 'murder', 'shoot' etc in the title.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

EATING ELEPHANTS

People are fond of judging big game hunters. I must admit to having some reservations about the practice myself.  It's just not my thang, but I accept that folks do lots of stuff that’s not for me, and accepting that is the essence of tolerance.

We hear the word 'tolerance' a lot these days, and of course being branded 'intolerant' is quite the insult of the times, however the tolerance so many people claim to embody in relation to things such as immigration and Islam, isn’t tolerance at all. Tolerance is not a matter of embracing something one does not oppose; something one enjoys or approves of. Tolerance is the act of accepting that which one is not comfortable with, does not like and does not approve of.

Unlike those who emote their position on big game hunting from a position of warm-fuzzy feelings and general ignorance, I at least have bothered to look into what big game  or “trophy” hunting involves. Having done so, I have decided that I will be tolerant of the practice until I am given reason (not emotive drivel) to change that view.

One of the most common smarty-pants statements deployed against big game hunting, goes along the lines of, "Well unless he/she ate that elephant he/she killed, he/she is just a murderer!" With that bleat in mind I thought I'd share a short video of what happens when hungry locals learn that one of their elephants has been taken in a hunt.  The video is not shockingly graphic, but it may be too realistic for the likes of the armchair critic.

(WARNING: Depicts rooly-trooly meat.)

Click image to play

Every scrap of elephant meat is eaten by people who often have access to very little protein. This is a condition of the legal government regulated hunt. The pictures one sees of dead elephants abandoned with their faces hacked off by machete-wielding barbarians, depict the work of ivory poachers, not hunters.

Such pictures are disseminated by animal-welfare agencies and organisations like The Greens, as the work of hunters. This is a stratagem designed to promote intolerance by deception and the Australian community laps it up like pigs at a trough. All countries acknowledge the difference between the illegal unethical activities of poachers, and the legal ethical and conservation conscious activities of hunters and they report the former as the work of poachers.

Every country does this, except Australia! 

In Australia, intolerant agencies such as The Greens and the NPA (National Parks Association) plunge huge amounts of time and resources into blurring the lines in order to engender disdain and even hatred of responsible hunters. It's a form of hate speech, given the verisimilitude of responsible, compassionate, even noble activism it doesn't deserve.

These agencies are fond of saying that shooting animals with a camera is a much better way to promote tourism and conservation. Tanzania has developed this option, creating 15 photo-safari areas, at great expense. Yet as National Geographic points out, "without the financial resources provided by hunters to protect habitat and stop poachers, there would be no infrastructure for wildlife management” (Sept 2nd, 2013). 

In short, it is because of the work of hunters, not photographers, that there are animals left to capture on film and hunters in fact pay for the photo-safari infrastructure.

Sadly, it has been found that the average photographer leaves a much larger ecological footprint than the hunter, with his demand for comfy motels, coaches, viewing platforms, restaurants, souvenir shops, hot showers, toilet facilities and all the waste that lot entails, but as long as we feel better about photographers than hunters, what does any of that matter?

For further information about legal hunting's contribution to wildlife conservation programs, and the realities of hunting vs. shooting with cameras, I encourage you to watch the expert panel assembled by the University of NSW's program "The Hot Seat" below.

Click image to play "The shoot lions don't they?"

Hunters currently provide the bulk of funding for all wildlife conservation and management activities in the US. 

Conservation agencies also raise huge sums for conservation, a considerable percentage of which they spend on campaigns opposing hunting. It is the hunters' coin that arrives intact at the coalface and services hands-on conservation efforts.

In 1900 there were less than 50 white rhinos remaining in the world (wild and zoo populations). Today there are more than 20,000, largely thanks to big game hunting revenue.

In 1900 there were approximately 500,000 white tailed deer in existence. Today they number around 32 million, thanks to hunters’ licence fees and other hunting related levies.

Were they not the subjects of disinformation and hate campaigns sponsored by the agencies that 'tolerant' people take pride in donating to, the knowledge commitment and energies of Australian hunters could be tapped into to the very great benefit of the Aussie environment.

Ah, but that would require a great act of tolerance, which of course the intolerant simply will not tolerate.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.