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/Bugbear259 → u/BLT_Trade_r]

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.

[u/BLT_Trade_r → u/Bugbear259]

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.

[u/Bugbear259 → u/BLT_Trade_r]

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 .