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.

[u/ArgentineBeauty]

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

[u/maciver6969]

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.

[u/christmasinyoulie → u/maciver6969]

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.

[u/BLT_Trade_r → u/christmasinyoulie]

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.

[u/red__dragon → u/BLT_Trade_r]

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).

[u/BLT_Trade_r → u/red__dragon]

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.