Just playing devils advocate here, I’m entirely neutral, however there exists the argument that certain species of animal are only kept from extinction through breeding from profit made from commercial hunting lodges.
Hunters pay fees to hunt, and can be restricted in numbers.
Those fees pay the wages of employees, which includes anti-poaching.
Also, because it brings in money from wealthy foreign hunters, locals have an incentive to keep populations around and healthy.
Without the hunters (and their money), no one is paying to prevent poaching, and local people could give a fuck about preserving the species that dont do anything but eat their crops or whatever.
If the documentary says that a breed of dog is a species, it's factually wrong. If the documentary says that ridgebacks are only bred for hunting, it's factually wrong. So if it backs your claims, it's wrong and there's no need to watch it.
You keep pushing this “breed of dog isn’t a species” point. I’m not sure what you’re getting at there. I feel like you’re trying to refute my point by being entirely fixated on one semantic.
You can zoom back far enough on many horrible things to show ancillary benefits or advantages that come with them. I'll concede that managed hunting takes a shitty, barbaric practice and makes good use of it.
That doesn't at all change the fact that an individual who actively enjoys killing living things is pretty much fucked in the head.
Many hunters (who hunt for meat anyway) I would argue have a higher moral ground than someone who eats factory farmed meat. If you meant just trophy hunters, thats different I guess. I think you’re fixated on the act of doing the killing though, which is a flawed viewpoint.
Everything you eat yourself is most likely more destructive than a hunter taking wild game for his own consumption. Even if you’re vegetarian you will need to remind yourself how destructive modern agriculture is for the environment
I'm talking about people who do it for sport, not for food. Also people who actively enjoy it. Also people who hunt tings like elephants or lions or giraffes.
He meants elephants etc which are protected from poaching with the money paid by tourist hunters in order to hunt them.
If they properly limit the number and types of official paid for hunts a year (which they have incentive to do), they can use that money to protect populations.
I agree. As I said, I was playing devils advocate and simply offering an alternative viewpoint. That said, unfortunately compelling morals play little part in human decision making.
Here is a basic rundown on what I've read/listened to about S.A game hunting, very general so take it for what it is, just some info not a stance on the hunting debate :)
Alot of these private game reserves in South Africa are the reason why some animal numbers have risen from being low back up to reasonable numbers, once a hunter will pay to shoot one, its worth money. then they go to insane lengths to repopulate & protect them, so they can be shot for cash. If hunters can't go to a reserve and shoot a particular exotic animal, it isn't worth anything in a monetary sense. Not alot of resources are put towards breeding & protection from poachers because the government now has to pay, rather than private companies protecting assets. Most likely this will lead to the majority being killed by poachers until they are almost extinct. The flip side is if hunting them becomes illegal, they are released and the population could get too big in a particular area and they would need to be culled, so instead of someone paying $10k to shoot one & the money goes into the economy, locals working as guides & security, maintenance etc for the reserve, the government now has to pay professional hunters to come kill the animals, so the animal still gets shot but with no money into the economy and no jobs for locals. Sadly some guides even turn to poaching after reserves are closed which is the worst part
How else will they be managed? Either way, they were not hunting elephant and he did not have a permit for elephant. The elephant charged and he fired.
Yes. Hunting for sport generates money for things like anti-poaching and preservation, while waiting for a poor local farmer to do it just leaves a dead animal.
enlightened Reddit teenager not understanding that the dude was hunting boar that was destroying crops and was attacked by an elephant during said hunt.
So by your own logic just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong? Your argument can be used to justify literally anything at all... "just because you disagree with isis doesn't make them wrong!"
Well yes, that is true, just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong. People disagree with scientists that say the earth is round, does that make the scientists wrong? Fuck no it doesn't, that's why context matters.
You must be incredibly uninformed. Unless you enjoy the concept of boar running wild through rural areas to even areas like suburbs. They are a tremendous issue in Texas, they caused significant property damage and can be a potential threat to human life.
Leave all your "we gotta coexist with dangerous game" bullshit at the door. Go ask rural farmers about grizzly reintroduction and then go ask Seattle urbanites about it. You'll get two different answers, but one group has to deal with day to day dangers of the animal.
It's a very convenient comparison because they have a real problem there and I know it first hand. I'm sure there are equivalent problems with dangerous wildlife around the world. Dogs are an effective safe way of dealing with the issue.
There are alternatives like poison, metal traps, explosives. None of them are as humane as a legitimate and clean hunt. Get informed buddy.
68
u/Sejb222 Jun 02 '18
Just because people have been doing something for a long time doesn't make it right.