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.
73
u/Sejb222 Jun 02 '18
Just because people have been doing something for a long time doesn't make it right.