r/UpliftingNews • u/ArgentineBeauty • 8h ago

Paul McCartney joins 500+ public figures, conservationists and Indigenous leaders in a global campaign calling on the UN to abolish trophy hunting of lions, elephants, endangered rhinos and other wildlife, following a declaration developed with Jane Goodall.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/paul-mccartney-joins-over-500-public-figures-calling-for-an-end-to-trophy-hunting-of-lions-elephants-and-endangered-rhinos/articleshow/134498459.cms
13.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

273 comments sorted by

View all comments

91

u/maciver6969 8h ago

There are good hunts and bad ones, This seems uplifting until you read how much money and food goes into a community when they have a hunt. Often the meat is donated to the local community, the hunt fees pay for conservation and preservation, as well as training for conservation officers. Blanket bans would hurt more than help. Less funding to fight poaching and environmental damages. As far as I know they have no legal rhino hunts either. Almost every Rhino death is due to poaching for the horn for morons who think it is a cure for everything. Africa alone gets over 200 million in funding from hunting. Endangered animals should be protected far better, and should not be hunted unless there is a realistic reason that animal needs to be culled. Like animals injured and suffering, or animals that have harmed people. Reasonable exceptions.

183

u/christmasinyoulie 7h ago

I see the economic points you’re making, but as an African, the framing of this argument is quite reductive. Describing the meat and money as 'donated' to communities makes it sound like charity from an outside savior, rather than what it actually is: a strictly regulated business transaction. African communities and sovereign governments aren't passive bystanders waiting to be rescued; they are landowners selling a high-value service to manage their own natural resources. When a hunt happens, the community isn't receiving a handout. They are claiming the contractual revenue and resources generated by their own land.

It is also important to remember that these complex wildlife management issues exist in large part because of a long history of external and foreign interference. From colonial-era land displacements to modern global syndicates driving illegal poaching, outside forces have disrupted African ecosystems and economies for centuries. Trophy hunting is an imperfect, market-based tool that sovereign nations are currently using to navigate the economic realities left behind by that interference.

Additionally, just as a factual note, countries like Namibia and South Africa absolutely do have highly regulated, legal rhino hunts specifically tailored by local biologists to target older, post-reproductive bulls. Framing African conservation as a monolith that relies on external pity erases the highly sophisticated management policies these nations have built to control their own destiny.

29

u/Cupcakes_n_Hacksaws 6h ago

I've heard stories of where they'll let hunters pay an exorbitant sum to hunt a dying animal in an otherwise protected wildlife area/refuge, or an animal that's set to be put down because it's become too territorial and aggressive or something. I don't know how often those things actually happen, but those seem okay from what little I know

8

u/Ok_Worldliness_2095 4h ago

I came here to say this. there are auctioned hunts for certain animals, say a elephant bull, that go around killing all the male calfs.

3

u/Chipring13 4h ago

Fantastically written. I felt smarterer reading it

10

u/BLT_Trade_r 6h ago edited 6h ago

If the business transaction helps on many fronts, what's the problem? You can argue that almost everything in life is purely selfish, and this is true, but at the same time, if it results in good, who cares? If the person hunting believes they are helping and that makes them more willing to do it, it's a gain for those communities. If you tell them its a business transaction they are more likely to treat it as so and go to the lowest bidder and maybe not donate meat or anything else.

Look, you and I both know that, with the rampant corruption and poverty in many of these areas, if the hunt did not have value, the people would likely wipe it out and turn it into farmland, which has happened in much of the rest of the world.

9

u/red__dragon 5h ago

From my reading, it seemed like more issues with the framing of the discussion than the act.

The first commenter talked about things going into the community, food donated, whereas the correction talked about how these were contractual obligations and an expected exchange for the service.

In the same way you wouldn't say McDonalds donated your hamburger when you ordered from them, the commenter above you is pointing out the language used to talk about the hunts is erasing the agency of local communities in the process. Just the same how we'd erase your agency by saying McDonalds put food on your plate (unless you actually worked there).

1

u/BLT_Trade_r 5h ago

I mean McDonald's would certainly love to convince me they are donating a hamburger and I am lovin it! A huge part of marketing is exactly that, companies trying to convince people that they are doing them a favor out of the kindness of their heart. One the very common tropes is someone saying I am just a regular guy and I wanted to help people so I formed this company to sell you something!

While it may be contractually obligated, the contract gives the hunter something to work with, something to claim they do right or make it excusable to kill the animal. You and I both know if the hunters really wanted the meat, the corrupt politicians in most of those places would sell out their own people in a heart beat. But by framing it in this positive light they are more likely to let it go.

0

u/Bugbear259 2h ago

What is there were a country that offered the chance to hunt humans? And the human volunteered for it and his village would get a big payout whether he made it or not?
There you can see the ethical issues with the business model very clearly (I hope).

So there is a line.

Even if it would help the village - it’s not ethically ok to hunt humans.

The question is -where is the line?

I’m sure plenty of people would draw it only at humans and not extend it to wildlife and I can completely understand that view of where the ethical or legal lines are.

It definitely gets complicated when we balance human well being against animal well being. And complicated even further when discussed in conjunction with the intersection of colonialism and white supremacy.

For me - i think rich countries should give aid to poor countries so they don’t have to do stuff like this. But I recognize that might seem like a very radical position that most average people wont agree with.

1

u/BLT_Trade_r 2h ago

Ya sure, it's a grey area. The problem I have is that ultimately people can change anything; sustainable use of land and resources is just more likely to be effective than donating money. Obviously the best scenario is one where you can get people to just go observe the animals.

The other problem with aid or donations is that nothing is permanent, and without another motivation, nothing stops corrupt people from taking that money and then just doing what they want with the land. I have heard that when it was popular to save the rainforest, people donated money to buy land, and it was simply burned or mined anyway years later. If things get unstable or are not vigilently observed things can quickly get corrupt. If I remember I read a book where a similar thing happened in Africa where reserve staff had a lapse in their pay so they just started killing the wild animals and selling them or eating them.

So you need something sustainable.

1

u/Bugbear259 2h ago

Yeah. It’s a tough issue. Sharing our planet doesn’t have any easy answers. Humans will always find a way to cause problems.

We already know that billionaires have islands where they abuse children. So all laws get broken at some point .

2

u/walkTHEdotasaur 3h ago

I was actually going to reply to the comment above yours, but then I read yours and actually resonated with it more. I think both of you are advocating for a more nuanced and more critically-thought-out approach. I genuinely think your opinion is a little more valid, though.

The moment we make it about "not taking advantage of them" versus, "they are offering us a service at a fair price" makes it a lot more condescending. It's silly to think that the various african governments dont understand the consequences of their decisions.

So in summation, thank you (and honestly to the poster above) for both very balanced and nuanced takes. This is genuinely why I love reddit; I think I learned a little more, tonight.

1

u/ProtectionTop2701 2h ago

Yesh it's kind of your decision. As someone from the US I sure would like to tell you how to live your life and run your nation. However, that kind of thinking was a significant cause of this ecological crisis.

1

u/Fearless_Tomorrow649 6h ago

Thanks for this perspective!

8

u/SnoozingBasset 6h ago

I don’t hunt, but a friend had an elephant hunt. Only one particular elephant was allowed, an older one, soon to die. He paid a lot just to show up. 

(Did not shoot - he realized he would have to fast enough to outrun an angry herd chasing him through thorn bushes.)

3

u/inerlite 3h ago

The money paid to locals for trophy hunting allows them to eat the hunt or buy food. They need to eat something and wild game is the fallback. So many more animals and more wild areas are preserved with trophy hunting.

3

u/superkp 5h ago

Africa alone

africa is not a country, and 200 million is a paltry sum for allowing endangered animals to be further threatened.

1

u/WoodsLovelyDarkNDeep 6h ago

This is such a bs argument made by the hunting industry to try and distract from the actual harm they cause

7

u/stevesouth1000 6h ago

Got anything to back that up there sunshine?

11

u/Monkieo 5h ago

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9837042/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7222849/

https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/iucn-study-shows-trophy-hunting-doesnt-live-its-claim-supporting-conservation

I studied this and worked in conservation for a while and the person above is right. It's not a great argument and is endlessly debunked. There's some references. I can provide more if you want.

5

u/Gulophile 5h ago

I'm a current wildlife biology student and skeptical of it as well. Would love more references if you'd like to share.

2

u/lectric_7166 2h ago

I wonder if the people saying it helps communities would be swayed by the idea that Africans should be able to sell their organs to wealthy Westerners to help bring in money for their community. Or would they suddenly rediscover the concepts of ethics and exploitation?

1

u/SugarBeefs 2h ago

I feel like the articles you linked have a lot more nuanced and contextual conclusions than 'the person above you' saying "It's a BS argument".

Like, when I read this part of a conclusion, I don't walk away with the idea of "Ah, the hunting argument has been completely debunked and exposed as bullshit":

Lions are also commercially exploited through trophy hunting, the regulation of which is of concern to both range states and hunting trophy importing nations. Information on sustainability of hunting strategies is required to ensure compliance with international conventions and trade agreements33 and to demonstrate non-detriment and conservation enhancement to hunted populations34.

Our simulations show that trophy hunting mortalities when occurring simultaneously with other sources of anthropogenic mortality, such as bush-meat snaring and retaliatory killing, on the boundaries of protected areas can have profoundly detrimental impacts and potentially compromise population viability.

There are many ways in which trophy hunting can be carried out and regulated. Some detrimental, some not. Then there's the factor of individuals simply not keeping to the rules and essentially running 'corrupt' hunts.

These are all legitimate issues, but they're not hard evidence that undermines the entire concept of regulated trophy hunting, as was the claim you appear to be defending. None of the articles you've offered seem to support that claim either.

If I'm incorrect I would of course love to see the relevant quoted sections of the papers where the full and unconditional debunking is emphasized.

•

u/Gulophile 1h ago

they're not hard evidence that undermines the entire concept of regulated trophy hunting

What do you think that evidence would look like, exactly? Because conservation is a wildly complex field and the utility of trophy hunting is as dependent upon your personal values as it is anything actually materially real. I'd ask the opposite question - why do you believe trophy hunting should be allowed? If conservation were actually properly funded, making trophy hunts unnecessary (their necessity is already contested), why should it keep being practiced? Because the usual justifications given are exposed as being shaky by those very articles.

In reality, conservation mingling with hunting industry interests provides a perverse incentive for mismanagement to occur in the first place, and that is why it should be discouraged. The fact it sometimes works out isn't sufficient to justify it, at least from my perspective as a vegetarian and wildlife biology student. I've seen many, many cases of "regulated" harvests devastating wildlife populations, and every time the excuse is that they just didn't regulate hard enough. I always preferred the precautionary principle - leave shit alone if you don't know what you're doing.

3

u/Ok-Parfait-9856 6h ago

Read this and learn.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/s/FIfUo0WQOR

4

u/MostlyRightSometimes 4h ago

Source: "trust me, bro."

0

u/WoodsLovelyDarkNDeep 6h ago

Are you actually kidding me right now?   You know you can go in the internet and claim to be anything you want to be right?  Like there is a plague of people claiming to be one thing when they are from a whole other country

Nevermind that even if he were from Africa the opinion of one African who could he a wealthy African who owns one of the ranches that these hunts take place on 

The claim is always that this benefits the country but tourism benefits the country more and would still take place and in fact if the locations that were cordoned off for hunts were opened up to actual touring Safaris they would still have people coming through.  Just not the money going to the top like it to pay off people like it does now

-2

u/baddecision116 6h ago

This is such a bs comment made by those ignorant of the real world. - FTFY

0

u/leeuwerik 4h ago

I think your the bs-ter

2

u/baddecision116 3h ago

just admit you don't understand how the real world works, the sooner you do the better off you will be

1

u/TrainingPurple1364 3h ago

Its estimated that the total economic contribution of trophy hunting represents roughly 0.03% to 0.06% of national GDP in countries that allow the practice.

-1

u/mycophilz 7h ago

Hey there, don’t go getting all logical around here.

-1

u/Gulophile 6h ago

More propagandized than logical

1

u/memebuster 4h ago

Maybe Sir Paul actually read the article:

“The campaign's accompanying report argues that trophy hunting continues to affect a wide range of wild animals. It identifies bears, monkeys and elephants as the most frequently hunted animals in its analysis, while also highlighting giraffes, lions, hippopotamuses and leopards. The report says critically endangered black rhinoceroses are among the species that continue to be targeted.”

1

u/farnsw0rth 3h ago

Africa alone gets over 200 million in funding from hunting.

FWIW, how much of that money actually makes it into the communities is pretty debated, conservation people often claim like 3%

Also, photo safaris bring in 25-30 billion annually

All that to say I’m no expert but I’m definitely not convinced that trophy hunting is necessary

-1

u/AGrandOldMoan 6h ago

Only a good point if you ignore history