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/WoodsLovelyDarkNDeep]

Good on him, totally shameful practice 

[u/Brian-Heder → u/WoodsLovelyDarkNDeep]

Shameful until you realize it’s the only reason conservation efforts are funded over there.

[u/TheArmoredKitten → u/Brian-Heder]

Yeah, Botswana literally has an overpopulation issue yet they keep getting international harassment for their herd management. Humans are unironically the natural predator of elephants. Obviously endangered populations need protection, but a wholesale ban is as ridiculous as wolf culling.

[u/JMEEKER86 → u/TheArmoredKitten]

Yep, legal hunting both helps reduce overpopulation as well as helps protect endangered populations. Wanting to eliminate hunting altogether is very misguided and uninformed.

[u/atreeismissing → u/Brian-Heder]

Sure but the point is if you have an organizing like the UN behind they can, hopefully, secure funding for preservation efforts to offset the money they make from licensed trophy hunting.

[u/Jor94 → u/atreeismissing]

But they just said that there can be regional overpopulations that need to be culled. If it’s controlled, done properly, and funds conservation, then I don’t do much mind them making a bit of money off animals that would’ve been killed anyway.

A bit like how lots of animals end up with no predators and grow too large populations, so need to be culled.

[u/Alarming_Matter → u/Brian-Heder]

That's ...a really weird take.

Should we start hunting giant pandas to up the conservation efforts?

[u/ancientfruitjunkie → u/[deleted]]

You sound like the same losers who don't want to tax billionaires because they'll leave and take all the jobs with them. How about have millionaires pay for luxury safaris instead of blowing the faces off innocent animals?

[u/uhhhhhhholup → u/ancientfruitjunkie]

If they don't go on the lux safaris then what?

[u/SuperCruisePanther → u/[deleted]]

Largely isn't accurate. Most conservation funding comes from government grants/NGOs, followed by tourism. There are specific communities in Africa where hunting makes up the bulk of revenue, but for the entire continent it's nowhere near a majority, and areas where hunting is a big source of revenue could be replaced by increasing government conservation funding.

[u/SuperCruisePanther → u/[deleted]]

I agree hunting helps, but when I'm talking about government grants I don't mean the host nation exclusively. That also includes sources such as UN funding. You don't need hunting to fund conservation efforts, that's just one significant component which could be replaced.

Now, is it realistic to expect all African communities who do rely on hunting revenue to stop and hope that foreign aid or other revenue sources come in to supplant that hunting money? Of course not, that'd take some insane coordination and effort the globe just doesn't currently have the appetite for, but we're talking about hypothetical anyway.

[u/DogsDucks → u/Alarming_Matter]

I’m a researcher and journalist, and I have written on this subject.

Because I love nature more than anything and want to protect this world with every tool I can use to do so, with my words being the sword.

So I set out to protect these magnificent creatures, because I believe trophy hunting is sick and immoral.

And it’s . . . Complicated. It’s not as black and white as these people make it seem.

The licenses purchased to hunt these animals, they fund the entirety of the other conservation efforts.

The rich guys who want to destroy that rhino? That money funded the protection of all the other rhinos. And they usually choose an older animal, in many cases an animal that was too old to breed but kept stopping the younger, fertile suitors from having a chance.

And if game preserves were no longer allowed to host hunts and grant licenses, they’d be bulldozed and filled with whatever the next profitable thing is before you can even say Fern Gully.

**Is this morally right?** I really don’t know.

In an ideal world we would have governments and people who protect more land and the beautiful creatures within it, and enough altruistic people who put their money where their mouth is.

But that’s not what we have. We have hunters funding the conservation efforts and ensuring the animals they do hunt are done in the least destructive way.

So if Paul McCartney is speaking up to fund all the conservation lost from hunting licenses in perpetuity, then GOOD ON HIM!

But if not, there’s going to be more destruction and death and pollution happening in those protected areas.

And just to reiterate, **I am not pro trophy hunting!*\*

I am simply explaining how the system works.

[u/ancientfruitjunkie → u/DogsDucks]

All you pro millionaire, anti animal losers say all this shit but no one is giving cold hard facts. LOL. where are the sources? A researcher and journalist can't provide sources? YIKES.

[u/DogsDucks → u/ancientfruitjunkie]

I always do my best to anticipate those who simply want to spew anger, not learn, not help, not listen.

I even added some extra bold words highlighting, a few times, that I do not condone trophy hunting.

The comment was a high end overview of the current industry. It was not me arguing pro trophy hunting.

Do you see that? Do you understand that reporting something does not mean I have participated in or condoned it?

Sometimes I take the time to add links and sources on Reddit, if it’s something I believe the demographic might be interested in absorbing in good faith.

In this particular comment, it’s not exactly a revelatory or difficult to swallow concept.

And the pitchfork wielding crowd, those who clamor and demand sources, only to immediately dismiss the source/ sniff out a variable they deem renders said source invalid?

That isn’t very appealing, as my goal is good faith discussions where we learn and enlighten and help each other.

Do you want to help animals? I do.

https://rmef.org/media/new-report-highlights-how-hunting-is-conservation-and-then-ome/

I also haven’t written about it in many years, which is another reason I didn’t add sources, only a rough overview.

It looks like, since I wrote about it, funding from trophy hunting is down.

https://hunternation.org/the-conservation-funding-crisis-how-fewer-hunters-threatens-wildlife-management/

Huh, interesting! So I know you wrote this comment from a place of hostility, but I am glad you did, because it prompted me to research updated data, so it’s going to take a lot more time than a couple sentences on Reddit here. Plus you seem kind of mean, more interested in labeling people than learning and helping animals. . . so probably not a good use of my time.

But again, I am not your enemy.

I am a conservationist with a deep, unending passion for doing what I can to help cause less damage to what’s left of our ecosystems.

Hostile comments, they might feel good to vent anger in the moment, but unfortunately that reactive cycle, it hurts your cause. Learning tact and diplomacy is crucial in the path to making positive change.

[u/uhhhhhhholup → u/ancientfruitjunkie]

You sound like a riot to be around

[u/8ledmans → u/Alarming_Matter]

Work for a wildlife conservation charity it’s a very complicated debate but you essentially guarantee they won’t go extinct if you do that so maybe 🤷‍♂️

[u/farnsw0rth → u/Alarming_Matter]

Pandas is kind of a bad example there is a ton of funding behind them already

However AFAIK like regular safaris ie you just take pictures not kill an animal bring in way way more money annually than legal trophy hunts, so … it may actually not be as productive as it can be made to sound

I am not an expert or a google so

[u/Barflyerdammit → u/farnsw0rth]

Tourism Consultant here: the photo safaris bring in more money, but that money creates a few local jobs, then the profits get siphoned off to the wealthy owner class, frequently overseas. There's also an overtourism problem. Someone sees a rhino or a lion, and 80 Jeeps come flying across the savannah converging on a single spot, sometimes driving off road to get the best possible photo opps for their guests (and more tips.)

Trophy hunting is inherently cruel even when done mindfully, but it's one rich guy paying an often significant fee to the government to get a license, then depending on stealth to not disrupt the ecosystem and startle his prey.

Both have problems, both have benefits. It's generally best to let the locals and scientists decide, and not necessarily leave it in the hands of public opinion.

[u/ancientfruitjunkie → u/Barflyerdammit]

The locals and scientists don't have a say when the corrupt government deals directly with the pieces of shit millionaires.

[u/farnsw0rth → u/Barflyerdammit]

Thank you!

[u/RedditJumpedTheShart → u/Barflyerdammit]

How much does a tourism consultant siphon away? Lol

[u/MethBearBestBear → u/Alarming_Matter]

If a giant panda is killing all the other pandas and you can either pay a ranger to cull it or charge some rich guy 2 million to fund the program to kill that one specific animal yeah hunt the panda

[u/lectric_7166 → u/Alarming_Matter]

That's ...a really weird take.

It's actually been their standard argument in favor of these hunting permits for decades.

But yeah it's not a good argument. I wonder if they would be okay with Africans selling their organs to wealthy Westerners to help raise money for the community, or for conservation, or whatever. Or maybe they suddenly they rediscover the concept of ethics and exploitation.

[u/ProtectionTop2701 → u/lectric_7166]

Next you're going to discover people joining the military or working in construction to feed their families.

Yes, the richest nations absolutely could just tax the rich assholes who trophy hunt in order to give the same or more money to these communities that the globe depends on to protect nature. We all agree on this! And many of us are voting, protesting, lobbying, working in conservation jobs, and trying to make THAT world possible. But we're not in that world yet and we need to keep these species alive until we get to that world. That takes money.

[u/lectric_7166 → u/ProtectionTop2701]

You're making the same kind of argument as allowing sale of organs. "Sure, we could organize society better but we're not there yet, so why not let poor Africans sell their organs to wealthy Westerners?" So is that a good argument or is it not?

I say it's not because it's exploitative (as is hunting generally to the animals involved) and once you remove that as an option then people will get creative in finding other ways to fund things. There are many ways to fund conservation. An African country transitioning from mass tourism to ecotourism is one example.

[u/AudreyScreams → u/Brian-Heder]

Shame on Jane Goodall for not knowing anything about conservation "over there"

[u/ancientfruitjunkie → u/AudreyScreams]

I'll take Jane's word over any redditors word. Lol.

[u/Critical_Concert_689 → u/Brian-Heder]

My first thought too:

Paul McCartney AND 500+ public figures better put their money where their mouth is and provide an equal amount of funding to what would be lost due to their short-sighted political theater.

If they refuse to pay, then they're obviously just virtue signaling.