The Duke of Cambridge and Conservation Efforts 1: Ending Sep 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do know the difference between legal and illegal but I didn't know much about the animal itself. I admit I'm simply not a fan of hunting.

The timing of him taking a stance against (illegal) hunting but partaking in a hunting trip himself sort of ironic.
 
Empress Merel said:
The timing of him taking a stance against (illegal) hunting but partaking in a hunting trip himself sort of ironic.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how the two are related. He is not taking a stand against hunting per se, just illegal poaching.
 
Empress Merel said:
Doesn't that go pretty much hand in hand though?
Click to expand...


No.

Poaching is a form of hunting that occurs in violation of hunting laws and regulations. It is essentially deciding that the laws don't apply to you and thus that you can hunt without regards to season, population control, or hunting methods.

Legal hunting occurs within a confined set of restrictions that take into consideration whether an animal is endangered, when the species breeds, using approved methods of hunting (ie some weapons are approved while others aren't, it's typically not approved to hunt from a moving vehicle, the inhumane treatment of animals is prohibited, etc). There are actually a lot of restrictions placed on hunting, and frequently the end goal there is to either provide food for the hunters or to cull the growth of a species for the good of the surrounding population (ie allowing the wild boat population to grow endangers other wildlife in the area as well as the human population).

In short, you can have a problem with poaching and be in favour of conservation while also engaging in hunting as a past time. The two (or 3) don't contradict each other.
 
Empress Merel said:
Doesn't that go pretty much hand in hand though?
Click to expand...

Ish said:
No.

Poaching is a form of hunting that occurs in violation of hunting laws and regulations. It is essentially deciding that the laws don't apply to you and thus that you can hunt without regards to season, population control, or hunting methods.

Legal hunting occurs within a confined set of restrictions that take into consideration whether an animal is endangered, when the species breeds, using approved methods of hunting (ie some weapons are approved while others aren't, it's typically not approved to hunt from a moving vehicle, the inhumane treatment of animals is prohibited, etc). There are actually a lot of restrictions placed on hunting, and frequently the end goal there is to either provide food for the hunters or to cull the growth of a species for the good of the surrounding population (ie allowing the wild boat population to grow endangers other wildlife in the area as well as the human population).

In short, you can have a problem with poaching and be in favour of conservation while also engaging in hunting as a past time. The two (or 3) don't contradict each other.
Click to expand...

Very well put, Ish!

I remain surprised by the number of posts that we have seen on TRF that seem to demonstrate a clear lack of understanding between conservation of endangered species and hunting, per se.
 
Very well put, Ish!
Click to expand...

I agree.

People who are 'anti' hunting are almost always carried away by emotion on the subject. They never say what they would do in a world where wild [and often highly dangerous] animals are left to multiply unchecked ?
For them it is easier [and more emotionally satisfying] to demonise the hunter rather than formulate alternatives...
 
Thank you Ish for providing a clear and comprehensive post on the difference between legal hunting and illegal poaching.
 
Ish said:
No.

Poaching is a form of hunting that occurs in violation of hunting laws and regulations. It is essentially deciding that the laws don't apply to you and thus that you can hunt without regards to season, population control, or hunting methods.

Legal hunting occurs within a confined set of restrictions that take into consideration whether an animal is endangered, when the species breeds, using approved methods of hunting (ie some weapons are approved while others aren't, it's typically not approved to hunt from a moving vehicle, the inhumane treatment of animals is prohibited, etc). There are actually a lot of restrictions placed on hunting, and frequently the end goal there is to either provide food for the hunters or to cull the growth of a species for the good of the surrounding population (ie allowing the wild boat population to grow endangers other wildlife in the area as well as the human population).

In short, you can have a problem with poaching and be in favour of conservation while also engaging in hunting as a past time. The two (or 3) don't contradict each other.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know this!
 
Moreover, and somewhat ironically, those who hunt lawfully are frequently advocates for conservation. I suspect it is because they are actually out in the wilderness and thus have a deep appreciation of what it offers. Certainly the fees they pay to hunt in the US are frequently spent preserving habitats which is good for all species.
One of the issues is that many of the natural predators of species (ex. wolves for deer) have been eliminated from the habitat by man, the result is overpopulation of the species that used to be kept at reasonable numbers by the now extinct predator. Too many of one kind of animal results in loss of habitat for other species. Ideally, of course, the apex species (ex. wolves) could be reintroduced, thus eliminating the need for as much human culling (of deer, for ex.,) but that is unlikely.
Feral hogs are in a different category here in the US as they were introduced and are a particularly problematic species. They destroy habitat reducing the population of native species (plant and animal.) They can dig 3' deep, thus fences don't hold them in or out. They destroy crop land and as they are introduced they have no native natural predators, thus they are wildly successful at reproducing. They are a growing menace costing billions in lost food and destroyed habitat.
BTW, I saw about 20 feral hogs darting across a field a couple of months ago when I was out for a drive in Carmel Valley CA - the babies (about a dozen) were cute, the adults not so much.
 
Feral pigs are a very serious environmental pest in Australia, and it has been estimated that they impact agriculture to the tune of more than $100 million annually, and that might be a conservative estimate. They are opportunistic omnivores and kill and eat baby lambs and goats as well as native animals. Them rooting around in rainforests does a lot of damage to native ecosystems, too, and they spread pests and diseases. It is unrealistic to expect to be able to completely eliminate them, but there can be no doubt that they need to be controlled and a lot of time and money is devoted to feral pig control programs. Shooting is but one of the methods, and it is effective way of controlling numbers. I have no objection whatsoever to people hunting these pests. All I ask of people who choose to do it is that the shooter be experienced and skilled and seek to kill the animal as quickly as possible, for it is not the animal's fault it is a pest and it deserves to be treated humanely and not left, fatally wounded, to wander around in agony for days before dying. A clean kill is actually all I ask of people who participate in any form of legal hunting.
 
Roslyn said:
All I ask of people who choose to do it is that the shooter be experienced and skilled and seek to kill the animal as quickly as possible, for it is not the animal's fault it is a pest and it deserves to be treated humanely and not left, fatally wounded, to wander around in agony for days before dying. A clean kill is actually all I ask of people who participate in any form of legal hunting.
Click to expand...


Well put.

I don't think any legal hunter can guarantee a clean kill, but that is always the goal. This is a big part of the reason why some weapons are allowable while others aren't - a trained marksmen with a gun is likely to get a clean kill, while a trap isn't. The person who uses the trap instead is considered a poacher because they're causing undue harm to the animal and using inhumane methods.
 
The story is the Mail which has the Duke of Cambridge calling for all of the ivory in BP to be destroyed has me confused.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-send-message-illegal-elephant-poachers.html

The article states the William has hidden all the ivory at Clarence House where he lives. This alone makes me question the accuracy of the article.

The items in the royal palaces are part of the royal collection which are owned by the state not the monarch. The ivory items are not new and have already been made. For example, there is a carved ivory cup and lid with animals and the goddess Diana on it that Fiona Bruce featured in the Windsor Castle episode of the Queen's Palaces. It has the nickname of the brain. It was made in the 1700s. What is the benefit of destroying this 300 yr old item?
 
:previous:
I would think Granny would have something to say about that, let alone the Royal Collection.
 
Skippyboo said:
The story is the Mail which has the Duke of Cambridge calling for all of the ivory in BP to be destroyed has me confused.

Prince William 'wants to strip out ALL of Buckingham Palace's ivory... and destroy the lot to set an example for other world leaders' | Mail Online

The article states the William has hidden all the ivory at Clarence House where he lives. This alone makes me question the accuracy of the article.

The items in the royal palaces are part of the royal collection which are owned by the state not the monarch. The ivory items are not new and have already been made. For example, there is a carved ivory cup and lid with animals and the goddess Diana on it that Fiona Bruce featured in the Windsor Castle episode of the Queen's Palaces. It has the nickname of the brain. It was made in the 1700s. What is the benefit of destroying this 300 yr old item?
Click to expand...

There was an article in the Telegraph 2 days ago, stating that Prince Charles had removed ivory from display at Clarence House. I think that could be accurate.

PRince Charles had been called on, by "extreme" conservationists to destroy all of the ivory in the royal collection. As you point out, it's not owned by the BRF, but the state.

I've not read the Mail article but it sounds like they have lifted the story and changed the names to make it more Mail reader friendly.

The Telegraph reader comments were firmly against destroying centuries old workmanship.
 
Skippyboo said:
The story is the Mail which has the Duke of Cambridge calling for all of the ivory in BP to be destroyed has me confused.

Prince William 'wants to strip out ALL of Buckingham Palace's ivory... and destroy the lot to set an example for other world leaders' | Mail Online

The article states the William has hidden all the ivory at Clarence House where he lives. This alone makes me question the accuracy of the article.

The items in the royal palaces are part of the royal collection which are owned by the state not the monarch. The ivory items are not new and have already been made. For example, there is a carved ivory cup and lid with animals and the goddess Diana on it that Fiona Bruce featured in the Windsor Castle episode of the Queen's Palaces. It has the nickname of the brain. It was made in the 1700s. What is the benefit of destroying this 300 yr old item?
Click to expand...

Perhaps a solution would be to donate the historic pieces to a museum, but recent acquisitions could be warehoused.
 
TLLK said:
Perhaps a solution would be to donate the historic pieces to a museum, but recent acquisitions could be warehoused.
Click to expand...

I would think that anything belonging to the Royal Collection would have its own storage and vaults and warehouses and should a piece be perhaps the private property of Charles or HM that they have had handed down to them, how hard would it be to stash them away there? As passionate as Charles gets about the issues he stands up for, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that he's taken the measures to put away the things made from ivory that are around Clarence House. To not have his guests draw the wrong conclusion and see a paradox is smart. To destroy works of art is stupid.

Its also very possible that when the ivory was attained for the crafting of the pieces that the RF has, the times were quite different and the animals quite a bit more plentiful and not endangered as they are today.
 
If Prince William wants to protect wildlife, he'd better put down the gun | Ken Wharfe | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Do palace courtiers have a good eye for PR? This week Prince William and his brother "bagged" a few sandbags and waded the flooded upper reaches of the Thames. This tour of royal duty presumably produced the desired effect – positive media reporting – no doubt resulting in much merriment among the corridors of the royal household. On a roll, Prince William has called for all ivory artefacts to be removed from the royal palaces and destroyed. Less merriment now. Does his grandmother know about this? Surely such a statement will be anathema to the Duke of Edinburgh who will be muttering in William's direction, and heading to the press office to remind them who's in charge of this "bloody place". This follows the prince's attendance at the World Wildlife symposium in London last week. The hunting and slaughter of elephant and rhinoceros is no longer the sport of kings and the idle rich, with the exception of the Spanish royal family.
Click to expand...
 
An interesting article by Ken Wharfe. So those pheasant shoots are just setups to cater to the desire of the Royals and their friends to kill things. "Requiring little or no skill, royal pheasant shoots are a pre-planned carnage of wildlife, bred specifically for slaughter." On this issue I have to totally agree with Diana, for I, too, find it repugnant.

And one of the comments brought up that Hen Harrier issue. The Hen Harriers are being driven to extinction in Britain as a direct result of the work of the grouse moor gamekeepers whose priority is the grouse for blood sport and not the preservation of the native species. What do you have to say about that, Harry? If you're really interested in conservation, how about starting at home, working for the conservation of British species instead of heading off overseas to kill things.

Celebrities speaking up for the big, popular, species like elephants is common and requires little effort. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, because a lot of people pay more attention to what celebrities say than what experts say, and some celebrities are dedicated workers for conservation. To William and Harry I say spend a few years consistently working for the conservation of the less "popular" but equally important endangered British species and I'll have far more regard for you.
 
Roslyn said:
An interesting article by Ken Wharfe. So those pheasant shoots are just setups to cater to the desire of the Royals and their friends to kill things. "Requiring little or no skill, royal pheasant shoots are a pre-planned carnage of wildlife, bred specifically for slaughter." On this issue I have to totally agree with Diana, for I, too, find it repugnant.

And one of the comments brought up that Hen Harrier issue. The Hen Harriers are being driven to extinction in Britain as a direct result of the work of the grouse moor gamekeepers whose priority is the grouse for blood sport and not the preservation of the native species. What do you have to say about that, Harry? If you're really interested in conservation, how about starting at home, working for the conservation of British species instead of heading off overseas to kill things.

Celebrities speaking up for the big, popular, species like elephants is common and requires little effort. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, because a lot of people pay more attention to what celebrities say than what experts say, and some celebrities are dedicated workers for conservation. To William and Harry I say spend a few years consistently working for the conservation of the less "popular" but equally important endangered British species and I'll have far more regard for you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's a bit too complicated for me, Roslyn.

And the elephants are so darn cute.
 
New event announced

Martin ‏@WindsorEditor 10 mins
On 9th June, Prince William will attend the United for Wildlife Launch at Google in London. #RoyalDiary
 
It was a nice announcement/engagement today. I suggest we all chip in and buy the Prince a pair of dark grey trousers so he can look as spiffy as Becks does. ;)
 
Last edited:
Prince William today joined forces with sporting royalty David Beckham to launch a United For Wildlife Campaign.
The Duke of Cambridge, who is the president of United for Wildlife, launched #WhoseSideAreYouOn, a new campaign which harnesses the power of sport to raise awareness of conservation issues around the world.
William was joined by David Beckham, who heads a team of high-profile sporting stars backing this campaign to engage young people's support on social networks to combat the illegal trade in wildlife products.
Click to expand...

Prince William and David Beckham launch conservation campaign together | Mail Online
 
Osipi said:
Global, conservation of wildlife, young people, sports stars, social networking.

If you're going to do something, do it big and this is exactly what they're doing and I love it! Its not exactly one's run of the mill ribbon cutting eh? :D
Click to expand...


I watched the conference...and sadly i noticed by the end only 194 people were viewing that...considering the people who were apart of that...only having that many is terrible...to me that says there wasn't enough press promoting it..
 
iisuzieii said:
I watched the conference...and sadly i noticed by the end only 194 people were viewing that...considering the people who were apart of that...only having that many is terrible...to me that says there wasn't enough press promoting it..
Click to expand...

The press merely reports - it is WE who support and promote. I admit this sounds naive - but it is not the job of the press to change out minds. It's the job of the press to inform. But it is our job to have interest.

I realize that some press outlets don't believe this, but the the best do.
 
Osipi said:
Found this just browsing around and thought I'd share it.



World Ranger Day



Today, we honour those who risk their lives and offer up their time tirelessly to protect the remaining wildlife and wilderness areas on our planet - the Rangers.



Message from HRH the Duke of Cambridge (Prince William)...



PLEASE SHARE THIS AS FAR AND WIDE AS YOU CAN!





http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=gdpKm_Q4BKo&u=/watch?v=Kpt6vN0vwV0&feature=share
Click to expand...


I found it on You Tube the other night too and right away Tweeted the link on Twitter. Those Park Rangers battling the poachers in Africa are truly doing a very dangerous job and have my deepest respect. I just wish there was more I could do to help them.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince of Wales and Conservation Efforts 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
5
Views
318
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
Staff of the Prince and Princess of Wales 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
16
Views
2K
tommy100
T
Marengo
The Royal Foundation of the Prince and Princess of Wales 2: Sep 2022 -
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
6K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
The Prince of Wales and Sporting Charities 2: Sep 2022-
3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
9K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
The Duke and Duchess of Kent News and Events 2: Sep 2022 -
2 3
Replies
80
Views
7K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom