Louis Theroux's African Hunting Holiday

Lauragoesmad

Did anyone see this show that was on last night? I was so annoyed, I had to turn bits of it off!
Just wondering what people thought of it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/programme.shtml?day=sunday&service_id=4224&filename=20080406/20080406_2100_4224_12094_60

MsFifers

Oh I hope this doesn't start another acrimonious hunting row! :eek:

I didnt see the whole show, but I thought Paul T was being a bit silly about the whole thing (and I'm not a fan of hunting generally).

I thought one of the "farmers" or whatever they were called made a really good point - the chickens, pigs etc we eat for meat have a much worse time of it during their lives and deaths. Paul didn't seem to be too concerned about that though.

Those "wild" (not wild) animals seemed to be really well cared for and there was great concern that they were killed pretty instantaenously and as painlessly as possible.

I still dont understand WHY anyone would want to shoot semi-tame animals - fish in a barrel comes to mind.

The D.C Swan

It was strange that here were Americans hunting these animals for sport but due to the Americans financial backing alot of these animals that were close to extinction are now thriving. I guess there is a weird benefit of offering this "service"!

Lauragoesmad

MsFifers wrote: »

Oh I hope this doesn't start another acrimonious hunting row! :eek:

I didnt see the whole show, but I thought Paul T was being a bit silly about the whole thing (and I'm not a fan of hunting generally).

I thought one of the "farmers" or whatever they were called made a really good point - the chickens, pigs etc we eat for meat have a much worse time of it during their lives and deaths. Paul didn't seem to be too concerned about that though.

Those "wild" (not wild) animals seemed to be really well cared for and there was great concern that they were killed pretty instantaenously and as painlessly as possible.

I still dont understand WHY anyone would want to shoot semi-tame animals - fish in a barrel comes to mind.

It just annoyed me that the only reason these animals were being bred was for money and the fact that any animal that these idiots wanted to shoot was available to them. Also the guy who ran one of the shooting ranges himself said that when he was young, he might shoot one or two animals a season. These "holiday makers" want to shoot up to five or six animals a day. Its all about money, not conservation or improving the breed. I'm sure lots of the people on here who actually go hunting would not approve of an organization that approves of killing a rhino just as long as the person has $70,000! It just shows you can do what you like in this world once you have enough money!!

meathstevie

No, didn't see it but fact is that the overwhelming majority of those gamefarms are extremely well managed operations that pump a lot of resources back in the local economy and that a lot of these farmers have done more for the protection of endagered species than all the southern African governments with the exception of South Africa put together.

Put it this way : the game farmers will actively deter poachers who're after let's say rhino horn and ivory in an uncontrolled fashion while a couple of miles accross a national border a heap of corrupt officials are only too happy to accept a few quid in order to turn a blind eye to a bush strip used for smuggling.

As for the quality of the hunting I can't comment but if the hunt and the kill isn't at least a bit of a challenge it wouldn't rock my boat. I wouldn't for example be too interested in shooting free range chickens but harvesting a quick on the wing wild cock pheasant imo is one of the most fullfilling meals I can have.

Our man in Havana

I found it hard to watch - my husband shoots & even he was upset at the thought of farmed animals being farmed to be shot! & the hides at the watering hole was horrid I thought! & the monkey the Americans shot was disturbing!

I am not surprised they did not show the lion being shot! I think the public outcry would be huge. I hated the American who said if I had the money I would shot everything regardless or rareness etc.

Glowing

I think he's good for highlighting what's wrong in this world - those americans who pay to slaughter wild animals and then pose with them are sick.

Lauragoesmad

Bond-007 wrote: »

I found it hard to watch - my husband shoots & even he was upset at the thought of farmed animals being farmed to be shot! & the hides at the watering hole was horrid I thought! & the monkey the Americans shot was disturbing!

I am not surprised they did not show the lion being shot! I think the public outcry would be huge. I hated the American who said if I had the money I would shot everything regardless or rareness etc.

Bond, I totally agree.
Some types of hunting are natural even though they disturb me and I would never do it myself but this was just for money making! If there was no money involved, these men would not be breeding these animals. Its a sad state of affairs when these so called "hunters" don't even have to track the animal or do any leg work.
I think its hillarious that the normal people of South Africa are called poachers when they shoot a rhino or a lion etc but when a rich American does it, its just a guy on holiday paying for a service. At least the animals aren't handed to the poachers on a plate.

meathstevie

Laura, I haven't seen the actual program but true enough I'm not a great fan of "armchair" hunting but on the other hand editing might have something to do with it. Anyway, the kill presented in front of your nose just devalues the concept of real hunting if it doesn't take at least some effort. And effort is not a synonym for whacking a wad of notes on the table.

In that way you can go "pheasant hunting" in the UK and Ireland as well. In general it works as follows : buy at least 2K worth of fashionable outdoor gear of the right brand, invest at least 5k in the newest gun from the flavour of the time gunmaker, spray fake mud on the D4 / Chelsea tractor and head out to the commercial shoot where a good weeks' wages for the average joe will allow you to shoot at a cloud of pheasants flying over.:rolleyes:

Not my cup of tea. When I go hunting I'm tired when I come back. Most of the time covered in mud with a few thorns from briars and hedges lodged here and there and when I'm lucky I'll have one or two pheasants or maybe something else to clean out for the next day's dinner or for the freezer to be eaten at a later stage.

Lauragoesmad

meathstevie wrote: »

Laura, I haven't seen the actual program but true enough I'm not a great fan of "armchair" hunting but on the other hand editing might have something to do with it. Anyway, the kill presented in front of your nose just devalues the concept of real hunting if it doesn't take at least some effort. And effort is not a synonym for whacking a wad of notes on the table.

In that way you can go "pheasant hunting" in the UK and Ireland as well. In general it works as follows : buy at least 2K worth of fashionable outdoor gear of the right brand, invest at least 5k in the newest gun from the flavour of the time gunmaker, spray fake mud on the D4 / Chelsea tractor and head out to the commercial shoot where a good weeks' wages for the average joe will allow you to shoot at a cloud of pheasants flying over.:rolleyes:

Not my cup of tea. When I go hunting I'm tired when I come back. Most of the time covered in mud with a few thorns from briars and hedges lodged here and there and when I'm lucky I'll have one or two pheasants or maybe something else to clean out for the next day's dinner or for the freezer to be eaten at a later stage.

Thats totally different because what you hunt goes on your plate and not on your wall!

stevoman

meathstevie wrote: »

Laura, I haven't seen the actual program but true enough I'm not a great fan of "armchair" hunting but on the other hand editing might have something to do with it. Anyway, the kill presented in front of your nose just devalues the concept of real hunting if it doesn't take at least some effort. And effort is not a synonym for whacking a wad of notes on the table.

In that way you can go "pheasant hunting" in the UK and Ireland as well. In general it works as follows : buy at least 2K worth of fashionable outdoor gear of the right brand, invest at least 5k in the newest gun from the flavour of the time gunmaker, spray fake mud on the D4 / Chelsea tractor and head out to the commercial shoot where a good weeks' wages for the average joe will allow you to shoot at a cloud of pheasants flying over.:rolleyes:

Not my cup of tea. When I go hunting I'm tired when I come back. Most of the time covered in mud with a few thorns from briars and hedges lodged here and there and when I'm lucky I'll have one or two pheasants or maybe something else to clean out for the next day's dinner or for the freezer to be eaten at a later stage.

+1 to that.

Im a hunter. Now driving around like that looking to shoot animals that are half tames isnt hunting. Its just people who have too much cash and want to say the shot whatver animal isnt sport. drivin shoting in the Uk and Ireland wouldnt be my cup of tea either, but of course this stems from the rich gentry too so it does. Rough shooting and hunting is all im interested in. Walking in the elements for the day with my dog and MAYBE be lucky enough to bring home a pheasent, duck or rabbit for the oven is enough for me.

You Must resepct what you hunt. native americans whilst hunting would always let the first creature they seen run away. Why? Because there will always be more to hunt again. Its a pity the white man didnt have that much wisdom!

But on the other ethical hand, if the large amounts of cash are being put into a long term conservation programme, is it ok to allow rich people to shoot some of these for the good of the creatures survival in the long run????????? mmmm

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I found it difficult to watch and thought the whole notion to be vile but you do have to consider that we farm animals to be sent to an abattoir to be shot with a bolt through the brain or suspended from conveyors and plucked and beheaded alive. The killing to eat argument doesn't really work because we in the west raise more meat than we eat while the rest of the world goes hungry, and the meat from the African hunts supposedly goes to feed the local people. Big debate, big issues.

Lauragoesmad

Most of the animals from that game farm were going on walls, not on plates. They were just trophies for self indulgent, rich, A$$holes!
I thought rhinos were on the endangered list and even if you breed them yourself, it is still illegal to kill one unless it is in self defense. Obviously $70,000 takes the species off the endangered list.

stevoman

Lauragoesmad wrote: »

Most of the animals from that game farm were going on walls, not on plates.

Thats my point, to me i would see no interest in that. The two things that kind of bother me is 1 - meat may not be being consumed. 2 - the animals are not being given a sporting chance.

Although my question above of ethics about the cash it generates still stands?

Lauragoesmad

No, I don't think it does stand. Thats like saying we'll sell 50 people world wide for slavery for 10 million each but all the money will go to ending child labour or people in a dog rescue letting people shoot a few of them for a price to feed the others. Its rediculous. I don't care how much money from this goes to conservation, its wrong and if it was me, I wouldn't want their money. I'd get it another way.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

and while you were trying in vain to get the money like many many conservationists all around the world are doing , people like this would be breeding animals and keeping the species alive. It is nowhere near perfect, but it's far far preferable to extinction.

MsFifers

Another interesting point I got from the prog, was how we romanticise (sp?) certain animals like lions and elephants - I was amused by the man that was going crazy about elephants because they "destroyed every beautiful thing" that grows.

Elephants as vermin?! Its like the way some people over here give out about foxes and how they are pests and need to be hunted to keep the numbers down.

As I said before, I'm not crazy about the idea of hunting but it seems to me there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to getting upset about animal welfare - no pun intended!

At least those animals had a nice, protected life and a quick death.

username123

Initially I watched and thought 'OH MY GOD - TERRIBLE PRACTICE'. But then the american woman said the meat IS used, sold in some cases and in others distributed to local villages.

If people are eating the meat I have no problem with it - as the previous poster said, the animals had a nice protected life and were killed quickly - better than factory farmed animals by a long shot.

meathstevie

MsFifers, believe it or not. In the past, and probably still, South Africa's efficiency at fighting poaching has saddled them with elephant overpopulation problems and limited culls had to be organised. Those anti-poaching patrols were something the South African army and rangers took, and probably still take as far as I know, very serious. Regularly they would lead to a shoot to kill firefight between the soldiers/rangers and poachers.

On the other hand the selective culling has allowed them to keep a very healthy herd in the parks as well .