Huntress Receives Death Threats After a Photo of Her Smiling Next to a Dead Giraffe Goes Viral

While I don’t object to hunting for food and conservation, this photo is totally uncalled for.

Why cant people just mind their own business. She is not doing anything illegal so people should just the hell up for God sakes..!

Those who live by the gun, shall die by the gun….

Take a selfie at a funeral.. Acceptable since it is Obama.. Smile next to a dead animal.. have your life threatened.. LOL

Clearly Clayon is a right wing extremist. It’s obvious since he doesn’t see anything wrong with dead babies, people hunting endangered animals (legally or not) and of course…pointing the finger at Obama for taking a selfie at a funeral?

Clayton, I highly doubt anyone is “lurking” or intends to harass you hahaha. Get off your egotestical high horse and stop making a fool of yourself. You clearly are a hypocrite when it comes to real life discussions.

Sick.

So am I the only one that actually knows Giraffes are on the endangered list and there is penalty if caught? Don’t worry she will get her legal action soon.

Hi all, I want to share some perspective here. Not sure I should step into this, but I feel like I should inject a few facts into the conversation.

I’m a photographer working for a hunting company. I am not a hunter myself, but spend a lot of time with them, every day.

Let’s start with the facts. Roughly 70% of the money used to conserve game animals comes from hunters and hunting tags. In the USA (different from Africa, and I’ll get to that), animal rights groups have lobbied for many, many years to have hunting shut down. The response from Fish and Wildlife is always the same: if those groups can provide enough money to cover the 70% loss of conservation money for game species, then they will consider limiting hunting further. This has obviously not happened.

So, conclusion one: hunters put their money where their mouths are, and pay sometimes enormous amounts of money to help conserve the animals they enjoy hunting. And in a responsibly-managed population, hunters are taking no more than around 5% of animals.

When trophy hunting comes into the equation, a lot of people get bent out of shape. This is understandable, as it doesn’t feel right to kill the animal just for its head.

However, trophy hunting is not as bad for the population as people think it is. The majority of trophy hunters are interested in shooting big, old, male animals. These are animals who have contributed to the genetic diversity of the population, and in some cases, are actually LIMITING that diversity, by preventing younger males the chance to mate. Removing them does not impact the population, and in some cases, can allow more breeding from younger males.

In addition, the meat almost never goes to waste. Whether or not the woman in the article above originally intended to donate the meat, the reality is that it really was likely that it ended up in the bellies of the locals. In most countries, it is required that a hunter remove and pack out the meat from their kills. I’d say about 90% of the time, that meat ends up going to good use, whether it’s used to feed the guide’s dogs, or, on good-eating species like elk or moose, is split up between the guide, hunter, and/or locals. And if you’re going to eat the critter anyway, how much worse is it to mount the head, since the meat isn’t going to waste?

In Africa, things can be different. A lot of these laws are not always present. However, there are some healthy animal populations in Africa.

Now here’s the kicker: I would bet Ms. Francis paid big money to shoot this giraffe. Even in Africa, that money usually goes to a combination of the park rangers, local people, and guides. So let’s look at the facts:

Ms. Francis likely paid a largish sum of money to hunt this giraffe, which was an old male likely to die soon. Its removal from the herd likely removed some breeding pressures on younger males, allowing them to hopefully increase the numbers in that population. The meat went to locals. She got a chance to hunt an unusual animal, in a legal context, in a manner that helped out the local population of animals and people. Wouldn’t you smile about that, too?

And for those concerned about cruelty: I would bet heavily that giraffe had a far quicker, less painful death than its fellows ever will. I have been along on pig hunts, and watched a pig die within, no exaggeration, thirty seconds of being hit. It hardly had time to squawk, and did not suffer. I can’t say the same for a critter that dies of starvation, or being torn apart by hyenas or lions…that’s a slow, painful death in either case.

Anyway, I’m sure I’ll get hit with some flaming, which is understandable, and I can take that. The bottom line is this: hunters are doing more for the conservation of game animals than any animal rights group. They pay huge amounts of money to make sure there’s a healthy population. They love the outdoors, and engage with it in a way that humans have done for thousands, if not millions of years. They get to eat free-range, grass-fed, GMO-free, organic meat. They know the animals they eat have led great lives, up until that last thirty seconds. Can you say the same for the beef you ate last night?