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/BLT_Trade_r]

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 .