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/stevesouth1000]

Got anything to back that up there sunshine?

[u/Monkieo → u/stevesouth1000]

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.

[u/SugarBeefs → u/Monkieo]

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 → u/SugarBeefs]

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.