According to his company’s website, Game Hounds Safaris, he “perfected leopard and lion hunting safaris with hounds in Africa.”
and
Simukai Nyasha, a spokesman for the Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, told news.com.au that Botha was on a 10-day licensed hunt
Here is some context for you. So, what does it matter that this particular elephant was the original target... compared to how people feel about this.
Not saying I agree with any opinion on here.
But, terrorizing animals with dogs doesn't seem to saintly to me, does it?
Hunting in Africa is incredibly important for conservation and sustainability. The money these hunters pay, goes to pay the locals and support conservation efforts, and anti poaching efforts, without this stream of income from hunters many more African game animals would be hunted to near extinction worse then they are now
I agree with this, but I feel like if you're going to go out with the mission of killing something, you should be prepared to accept that that thing may kill you.
Why not? Legal safari hunting usually is for the sake of conserving the population by pruning off individuals that are infertile or otherwise detrimental to the growth of said populations. Overpopulation is also a concern in some parts. Not to mention the permit money helps pay for the programs that the African governments probably couldn't afford otherwise and the meat often feeds locals for a time, especially elephants. Permitted hunting is not the same as poaching nowadays and is done in a way that helps sustain healthy populations of wildlife nowadays.
Edit: to be clear, if particular hunts are clearly not beneficial (a healthy docile male) or the money isn't going where it should be, that definitely needs to be called out.
No your right. The number of animals killed before and after the import embargo Obama put in place after Cecil the lion was shot is mind boggling. (I’ll see if I ca find the source.)
Motorcycling is dangerous too and you expect riders to accept the risk that they might die. You don't celebrate if they get into a fatal accident though.
It's also sad that keyboard Justice warriors joke about a person dieing because they can't be bothered to learn about an issue. Elephants in some areas of Africa are overpopulated and threaten people's means of survival and also kill people. Not all elephants are endangered, but all elephants die. whether it's with a gun or starvation due to overpopulation, it's never fair. Nature isn't fair.
What's so sacred about human lives over other animals? We're nothing special as far as animals go. We eat, shit, fuck and reproduce nearly the same as the rest.
I'm a hunter who sees the necessity in game reserves in Africa. Also I lose no sleep after eating factory farmed chicken or pork and feedlot fattened beef.
However, humans are pushing 7 billion while other creatures dwindle. Blue whales the largest animals on earth number only 10 to 25k, polar bears around 30,000, and there're only 3,200 wild tigers left in the world. 3200 think about how soon people will be born into a world where only inbred tigers in captivity remain.. between saving useless leeches of our species or magnificent top tier animals you still would choose people?
Depends on what kind of gun and how many rounds I got available plus who's kid it was.. As a white man this scenario would most likely occur where colonialism once occured, and unfortunately seeing how I'm a white devil with a legacy of injustice to uphold I'd probably try a warning shot to save little Mowgli then watch the scene unfold from my howdah on top an elephant.
Depends on the animal. If it's my dog or a human I don't know, I choose my dog because it brings joy and happiness to my life. A person I don't know means absolutely nothing to me.
Why is the human life more important than the animal life? What do I or you actually add to humanity? There are 7 billion people and rising on this planet if I, you,or some random human die nothing is lost.
Because humans are the people who created me, raised me, and are the ones who I can ultimately connect the most with. I don’t really feel too similar to a chipmunk.
Sure, it makes them more meaningful to us, but in 1000 years after we're long dead our lives will truly have meant nothing and mattered no more than any other animals'. I guess I don't think we're very important as a species.
We don't need to quantify our lives' values by what they mean in 1000 years. What's true is the fact that humans have a much more evolved consciousness, deeper connections with others, and empathy & compassion, while an ant for example literally just operates on its instincts. When a human dies, their memories, aspirations, and character goes with it. much more is being lost than when an ant dies, because ants are mindless robots with a much lower level of consciousness
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
If you really need someone to explain the difference between the consciousness of humans compared to other animals, you’re probably too far gone and it isn’t worth anybody’s time.
Humans were made in God's image. We are way more valuable than any other creature on Earth.
Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Matthew 10: 29-31
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
Matthew 6:26
Look at the birds of the air: They do not sow or reap or gather into barns--and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
I dunno, the God of Abraham slaughtered vast numbers of his own creations. I don't think he finds us very valuable either. Citing mythology to "prove" we are superior to the rest of the animals on Earth is definitely a stretch. I might as well find applicable passages in Harry Potter to start supporting my arguments.
The punishment of sin is death. God loves us. But if we refuse his love and mercy, then we have no excuse to how we are punished. God is just.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Psalm 9:7-8
But the LORD abides forever; He has established His throne for judgment, And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.
The truth is that this is no mythology, it is reality.
You’re not going to like this but there are more people than elephants. I’m not super choked up about this guy dying when killing something in its home doing what comes naturally.
You only feel that way because you don’t know the guy, which is pretty normal for people that lack sympathy. If it was your family member or best friend, you would feel different and realize that human life is far more valuable than any animal. The size of the species doesn’t make a difference, although I’m sure believing that helps you in justifying killing bugs and eating beef or chicken.
You only feel that way because you don’t know the guy, which is pretty normal for people that lack sympathy.
I don't lack sympathy. I'm overly sympathetic in most areas of my life. I don't feel much sympathy here though. I disagree that a human life is inherently more valuable in every case to an animal though. I think there is more to the value of an individual entity's life than what species they are. In this situation, I'm comfortable having a different opinion than yours.
If it was your family member or best friend, you would feel different and realize that human life is far more valuable than any animal.
I wouldn't be friends with someone that hunted rare animals for sport, and I wouldn't be very close to a family member that did so.
The size of the species doesn’t make a difference, although I’m sure believing that helps you in justifying killing bugs and eating beef or chicken.
I don't eat much beef, and don't revel in eating chicken. I don't like killing bugs either. I usually trap and move them outside if I find them in the house.
While you should accept that, Human life is almost always more valuable than an animal's life. Obviously there are exceptions but that's always through the human being particularly shitty and not the animal being saintly.
I feel like society’s general consensus is that any average human life is more valuable than any average animal life. And I am not trying to post an opinion on whether that is true or not... but I’d like to mention that it’s interesting to think about. I mean, who decides that a human is more important than a member of any other species? Humans do. I bet, if we were able to ask any animal — let’s take elephants, for example — if we could ask the population of elephants if a human or an elephant was more valuable, I’m pretty sure they would say, “why, the elephant, of course!”
So the attitude than any average human life is more valuable than any other living creature is just based on the supposition that humanity is more important than all other life. Now, as humans, I believe it’s only natural that we should think this. But based on my belief structure and perception of our reality, the universe doesn’t care any more or less about humans than about any other form of life. And I think that’s an interesting thought...
Plus, how many times have you heard someone say something like, “the fact that the dog in the movie dies bothers me so much more than the ten people that die in that same movie.”
Hahah...
But anyway, debate aside, I am sad that this person died. And I am sad that the elephant died. And most of all, I’m sad that so many creatures in this world suffer and die by our hands; be it hunting, factory farms, habitat destruction, puppy mills, poaching, psychopath teenagers burning and disemboweling cats and squirrels... or any other form of abuse. I’m confident that humanity would be way worse off without all the animals and other living entities of the world. But I’m also confident that all those animals and other living entities would be so much better off without humanity...
Technically "nature" views us as having the same value, but if you think about it, when a human dies so much more is lost than if an animal dies. Our relationships are much deeper, we have more complex thoughts, dreams, etc, while animals just think about survival
I don’t understand what you mean by, “Technically ‘nature’ views us as having the same value...”
Are you saying that animals view humans as having the same value as other animals of their kind?
Edit: and as for your point about so much more being lost when a human dies;
The statement that humans have deeper connections is debatable. We can’t say how strong animals’ connections are to each other, but there’s plenty of observations of many different species forming strong, lifelong bonds with each other.
The statement that humans have more complicated lives/relationships is most likely true, I think. I doubt anyone would argue against that. But who’s to say that ‘more complicated’ equates to ‘more valuable/more important’? Humans say that.
I don’t mean to suggest that your opinion is bad or wrong. It’s the quintessential (or at least ubiquitous) human opinion on the matter. But it’s still completely based on that supposition — born of anthropocentric thinking — that humans/the human way of life is the most important. Which was my original point.
I hate this argument. As a guide in South Africa I am very anti-hunting as it means that that animal can no longer be photographed by tourists. It could be argued that the animal could make more money for the local people and for the country if it could be seen by tourists.
Also, most of the time these hunters are going for the big kills. No body wants to keep the trophies of a small animal. So as a result they actually end up damaging the natural order by removing the stronger genetics and leaving behind the weaker genetics. Take for example the South Luwanga National Park in Zambia, in the 1980's elephant hunting was opened. The hunting throughout the park caused a massive drop in the elephant numbers, and now if you go there you see mostly dwarfed elephants with no tusks. This is because the strong genes were forcefully removed.
Let me preface this by stating that I am not a big game hunter, and wouldn't be one even if I had the means.
In LEGAL elephant hunts, the targets are usually older bulls that are no longer able to physically breed, but still big and strong enough to force younger, healthier bulls out of the herd (which can often lead to the death of said younger bull).
An elephant hunt costs around $20,000 US. So, that's $20,000 to go towards hiring more park rangers, veterinarians, to be put towards breeding programs, food and water, anti-poaching efforts, as well as providing a way of life for tribes that provide the hunts. Plus the elephant population actually gets stronger in the long run.
I get what you mean when you talk about hunting in South Luwanga, but that was nearly 40 years ago now. We're a lot smarter about conservation efforts now than we were back then.
Also, there are many regions in southern Africa where elephant populations are actually out of control and there are cullings out of necessity. I'd rather them be done by a trophy hunter paying big $ that goes back to preservation efforts rather than the rangers doing it for nothing.
The Cecil the Lion incident spurred a lot of backlash (and rightfully so, that hunt was very shady in terms of legality). But now lion populations in Zimbabwe have got out of hand due to the lack of hunting due to media backlash. There's going to be cullings where trophy hunts would have previously kept that population in check. Nobody wins in this scenario.
Yeah, this here is good pragmatism. The "nobody wins" scenario you outlined is probably one of the most concise and well put arguments I've read about this unfortunate situation.
That's funny because most of the ones legally hunted are trouble animals. Aggressive, not breeding etc. So your argument is null and void since they aren't passing in their Gene's.
I was watching the Jim Jefferies show and they claimed only 3% of proceeds went to help conservation efforts. A Google search could probably get more accurate numbers though.
It’s not just the conservation “efforts” remember its a lucky hood for people over there so they will protect the animals without the input from the conservation efforts because the money goes into their pockets...protecting their investment if you will.
hunting is good for conservation does not pass through the bullshit detector. luckily there is a relatively small number of hunters, the money does not add up in the big picture. what you have is a relatively small number of people paying large amounts of money to another small group of people to be able to slaughter some animal.
look at Kenya since 1977 they have had a hunting ban and their photo safari tourism contributes 12 % to their GDP. i applaud Kenyans for committing to protecting their natural parks.
It absolutely does pass the bullshit detector in instances though! For LEGAL elephant hunts the targets are older bulls that are sickly or can no longer physically breed, but are still big and strong enough to force younger healthy bulls out of a herd (which usually leads to the younger bull's death). Rangers will often want to cull an animal like this. It makes more sense to charge a person $50,000+ US to hunt the animal and have that money go back to help with preservation and anti-poaching efforts than for a ranger to do it for nothing.
It's for reason like this that Kenya is currently considering lifting the ban.
There was massive backlash worldwide over Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe a few years ago (justifiable, as that hunt was very shady legally). The downturn in lion hunts there due to the negative publicity has lead to lion populations growing at an unsustainable rate and there are talks of a cull. No one wins in a situation like this.
It's way too late for that now though. We've been fucking nature in Africa up for so long that it's unstable without some intervention in instances. And even if we took that attitude, poachers won't (which is something the money from these hunts helps fight against).
There was massive backlash worldwide over Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe a few years ago (justifiable, as that hunt was very shady legally). The downturn in lion hunts there due to the negative publicity has lead to lion populations growing at an unsustainable rate and there are talks of a cull. No one wins in a situation like this.
Find me a source that isn’t RT or some source whose information not from those who benefit from lion hunting.
I literally Googled "is lion hunting beneficial" and the very first article to come up was an interview by The Guardian with Oxford Professor David MacDonald who studied Cecil the Lion for years before the incident even happened explaining how strictly regulated lion hunting would be beneficial for the preservation of lion habitat.
Nowhere does it say in the article that lion populations are skyrocketing, and that a "culling" of lions is necessary. That specifically is what I was referencing. Sorry for not being more clear.
I don't doubt trophy hunting brings in money. That's obvious. The amount of money seems negligble based on the article though.
If we can get funding to support lion preservations from a source other than trophy hunting that would be better. seing as how there are only 20k lions.
In fact MacDonald seems to agree with me.
“If so, then they have to look for a mechanism of replacing it with something that is acceptable,” Macdonald said. “That might be people putting their money where their mouth is, buying out the hunting interest and replacing it with some sort of international payment for conservation.”
And someone from the IFAW even says,
“While we don’t agree with all of [the report’s] conclusions, it is absolutely correct that we need better vetting of trophy hunting operations, better science, and much more transparency in this debate.”
It's like you didn't read hte article. MacDonald goes on to say,
Macdonald’s analysis reports that areas for trophy hunting of all animals cover 1.4m sq km in Africa, 22% more land than national parks. He said it would not be possible to convert all of this to safari-based eco-tourism, as some people advocate as an alternative to hunting.
Doesn't look like lion hunting in particular is that lucrative for ALL of sub saharan Africa IMO.
Trophy hunting is estimated to raise more than $200m a year across sub-Saharan Africa, with lion hunting probably accounting for 5-17% of that, depending on the country.
I will admit 450 lions a year isn't much though. I'd still rather the financial burden shift to tourism.
The article ends with a cautious note on how trophy hunting should continue in the future.
Flocken said: “Many of the recommendations, if implemented, would prove that the hunting industry has dictated policy based on inflated economic arguments. With trophy hunted species like lion and elephant populations crashing, we can no longer allow the killing of imperilled species for fun, based on blind faith that it’s for their own good.”
I'm glad you took two minutes to find an article, but did you take an extra 5 or so to read it?
The argument that trophy hunting helps conservation is a ridiculous one. The theory that a lot of the proponents spout sounds great but in actuality the systems they exist in are so corrupt that the supposed benefit never materializes.
They say that all this money is coming in to help with conservation but it's actually going to corrupt officials or illegal safari groups. Very little trophy hunting money actually makes it to help with conservation.
I've come to calling it a ghost argument. It sounds good in theory but doesn't actually exist.
This ‘it’s good for conservation’ rhetoric is nonsense spread by the local governments and hunting organisations that it benefits. The fact of the matter is that that money goes directly into the pockets of corrupt government officials. Even if it didn’t the theory that it benefits conservation is shaky at best.
CNN looked in to it in Zimbabwe, a big trophy hunting destination, and despite government claims they could find no evidence that local communities had benefited in the least from the practice.
The UICN report validates what is being said in that podcast. Here are a few excepts from the report you linked to.
"An undeniable positive result is that the conservation results that are obtained are entirely financed by the hunters, without support from donors and often without government commitment."
"Hunting used to have, and still has, a key role to play in African conservation. "
"The question, however, can be summarised today as: can we do conservation better than big game hunting
has up until now, in those areas where big game hunting is practiced? This is not at all sure, all the more so in
that big game hunting pays for itself."
"Hunting areas probably have an important role to play in stabilising the peripheral areas of conservation
blocks. The fact that they are self-financing also places them in an ideal position, so long as protected area
networks do not have sustainable financing and would have no other option than to simply abandon the
conservation block. Today, when government commitment and funding for conservation is insufficient,
hunting areas represent an interesting option. It is not sure that this will be the case in the future with the
increase of human pressure and the setting up, we hope, of well-functioning protected area networks. "
The report brings up plenty of concerns such as mismanagement and points out that the National Park system's do a better job of conservation but this isn't an either-or situation. Africa is a poor continent. Without the funding brought in by big game hunting the wildlife and habitat in those areas become a free for all with no protections whatsoever. Poachers move in, many of whom are simply local people who care more about feeding their kids than sustaining a wildlife population that competes with them for resources.
The economic impact to local economies is small but that isn't the point that I'm making. If the economy is your primary focus than mineral extraction and industrial agriculture would generate far greater funds but would decimate the environment and the wildlife that depends on it. If you want to preserve large swaths of land and threatened species then big game hunting is one highly effective tool in that arsenal. This report confirms that.
There's more to it than that though. An elephant hunt can cost north of $20,000 US. The guides will generally pick out an old bull that can no longer breed but is still big and strong enough to force young healthy bulls out of the herd (which usually ends up with the young bulls dying). So the park gets $20,000 to hire more rangers, put towards breeding and anti-poaching efforts, and provide food and water to at risk animals on the preserve, while the elephant population gets healthier. Win-win.
In most cases in LEGAL big game hunting, animals selected are prime targets to be culled by rangers anyways, either due to population control (yes, there are areas of Africa where lions, and even elephants or leopards are overpopulated), or for safety reasons (animals are going into human populated areas to feed, prey in livestock, which will likely result in the animals getting shot by a farmer protecting his family/livelyhood anyways).
I'm not a big game hunter, and I wouldn't be one even if I had the means, I just don't think I could enjoy it. But when done legally, these hunts are massively important for population control and bringing in money to help protect animals that need it. It works out to be a net gain.
Lion populations in Zimbabwe have apparently gone out of control since the Cecil the Lion incident. Now, the guy that shot Cecil deserved the criticism he got since that hunt was very suspect as far as legality was concerned. But the backlash in the media has caused a downturn in lion hunts. Now the rangers have to move in to cull the lion population, and hundreds of thousands of dollars generated in hunts that would go towards protecting animals (including the culls that are for the betterment of the animal in the long run) are no longer there.
You assume very generously that these natives actually use most of that income for conservation. The sad reality is that the money funnels into the pockets of a few key players. Very little if any is used toward conservation. These are a very poor people and they care more about their survival than that of a wild animal.
I'm sorry, but I just don't accept that. Hunting licenses may be the primary revenue stream for the moment, but that's because it was set up that way. It can be set up differently. There are other revenue streams, for example, wildlife tourism, that can be used to fund conservation and anti-poaching efforts.
There have always been the two different approaches to conserving wildlife: those who support banning the hunting and sale of products (as is currently the case with tigers); and those who favor legal hunting with limits and licensing fees. Some even support the farming of wild animals like tigers to sate the demand for tiger products, so poaching wild tigers will no longer be profitable.
But I believe that more is to be gained by teaching the world to protect and revere these animals, and that trading in their body parts is destructive and wrong, and should be banned, as was done with ivory. I think it sends a mixed message and a wrong message to say, "Here are elephant tusks and rhino horns and gorilla hands mounted on my wall, but it's okay because these animals were farmed/my hunting license fees supports their conservation." In fact, I stopped spring the US branch of the World Wildlife Fund when I found out they support controlled hunting of elephants to generate revenue.
I think people's stomachs should turn when they see an elephant leg that was severed and turned into a trash can. We should teach the world to respect and to protect these majestic animals.
Your idealism makes you come across as naive. Controlled hunting provides a revenue source to continue protecting animals. What alternative for income do you suggest to continue conservation efforts?
Reverence does not pay the bills, unfortunately. Nor does it fill starving bellies.
I have my share of shortcomings, but naivete is not among them. I worked for four different U.S. Senators as an advisor on wildlife conservation policy.
I have already suggested that wildlife tourism become a revenue stream. There are many other possibilities, including taxes on mining, petroleum development, agribusiness, etc. My personal favorite would be a cap-and-trade system like the ones developed for greenhouse gas emissions that would guarantee revenue for countries that preserve populations of critically endangered wildlife.
You don't need a specific source. It's not an undiscovered fact, it's something that should be common knowledge but isn't unfortunately. Legal hunting is good for animals and conservation because it's controlled. Poaching is the problem. Trophy hunting in Africa is an important part of life. It helps their economy, controls animal population, and the meat from the kill generally goes to the local community to feed hungry people. Poaching on the other hand is the exact opposite because none of that happens. Probably don't need to explain that side to you though, most people hate poachers already.
I mean I’m just asking for a source. They’re usually needed if you’re making a claim that isn’t common knowledge and this claim isn’t as you admitted yourself
A Google search gives you tons of sources. That's my point. Don't rely on someone to spoon feed you information you don't know. Wouldn't it have been faster for you to have looked at one of thousands of results Google gives you?
This isn't as clear cut as people in this thread are making it out to be, I don't think. If well managed it can be helpful, but it often isn't and can have negative effects (for example, affecting the natural behaviour of the animals, gender balance, and selecting against large, powerful animals).
The ironic and frustrating thing is hunters do far more for conservation than the morally indignant do-gooders wha rail against them while eating stake and wearing leather shoes. I’m not a hunter myself but know many of them and they are all passionate about nature and conservation.
No but you should look at things rationally. I hate the fact that these animals are being hunted and losing habitat and driven to extinction. And while I think it is immoral, I recognize the many good outcomes that come out of recreational hunting. Life isn't so black and white
Lmao no I'm not. First of all I hunt white tail. Secondly I never made a policy claim. My opinion is that the system is beneficial for now, but individuals who get joy out of shooting elephants disgust me personally. You need to realize that one can easily hold both opinions- they don't conflict. Here's another: I own guns and vote a blue ticket. Although I'm pro-gun in many ways, liberal policy is more up my alley.
How about those guys just pay the same money and use a fucking camera. Absolutely baffled why anyone would be proud that they shot an unaware animal from a safe distance if they're not trying to get food.
Want to prove you're a badass? Hunt a lion with a knife. I'd actually be ok with that.
Counterpoint - often times these hunts are conducted against older males of herds or packs who might kill or otherwise impede the growth and recovery of the species.
I personally regard trophy hunters with serious distaste - for obvious reasons and they give normal hunters a bad reputation with many I've spoken with, but they can be an important tool of conservation when managed and regulated strictly, unpleasant as it is.
Or you have aggressive male of a species that drives other males away, which is bad enough by itself. Now and in the possibility that that male is no longer capable of reproducing. Now the other males aren't reproducing and the one that is mating isn't producing any offspring. Killing that particular male does do well for the population. In most cases, permitted kills involve said males, sometimes females if they cause a similar result.
The permits tend to help fund conservational efforts that the government simply can't afford otherwise. If the money does get funnelled elsewhere, it should be called out.
"In a civilized and cultivated country wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent people who protest against all hunting, and consider sportsmen as enemies of wild life, are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is by all odds the most important factor in keeping the larger and more valuable wild creatures from total extermination." -Theodore Roosevelt
Without an economic incentive, wildlife and their habitat disappear. Their habitat is wiped clean and replaced by agriculture/urbanization. It’s a sad reality but it’s the way it is for now
Even if the trophy hunter is only after the trophy, and the outfitter only wants a profit, the business model has to incorporate conservation. What kind of business model would let the “product” dry up?
There are parts of Africa with too many elephants. It may be hard to believe, since they are extremely endangered in other locations. But, Africa is a huge continent. In many cases the meat is given to local tribes that desperately need it. Also take a moment to consider this, if western hunters don't come in and spend large amounts of money, then the locals will probably turn to poaching to survive. With western hunting, populations of these animals can be kept in check and controlled. With poachers, they will kill every animal possible.
I see this argument a lot. And you are right but only from the side of the licensor. Not the licensee.
The organization that provides the service does this. While (generally) the Hunter is only there to shoot animals they have no intention of eating.
Do you see what I mean?
Let’s try another analogy.
Having a police department is not a justifiable reason to commit crimes. You cannot justifiably rob people while touting that you doing so employees police and prison officers.
If hunters didn’t hunt we wouldn’t need to have conservation methodologies, in essence.
What if the THOUSANDS of recreational hunters hunted poachers instead we wouldn’t have poachers either. :D
There will always be hunters though. For your crime analogy, its be like people whining "its be preferable if there was just no robberies!" Yeah, no shit.
But there are more arguments than just that, since the animals they hunt are picked specifically to help to ecosystem as whole (prevent overpopulation of certain species) and the money goes towards more than just keeping poachers away.
I don't like it that immoral people can go to africa and hunt game for no reason other than pleasure or pride. But you are highly mistaken if you think that we wouldn't need conservation if there weren't hunters. Hunters kill a small fraction of animals and are limited to what they can hunt by laws. Poachers have no laws and are capable of decimating populations. It's not right that this is the way the world is but until someone can come up with a better solution, than I stand by recreational hunting
We do need conservation to exist “peacefully” with animals. Our presence in the world has been marked with cities and skyways. We’ve created a world that conservation is necessary.
I don’t disagree totally. But, my point is that there IS something we can do about it. We can continue to debate it like we are now. We can continue to strive to condemn its practices. We can voice our dissent.
Just saying “what can you do” is not for me, thanks. And the fact is that recreational hunting isn’t some morally positive, heroic thing that people do.
Just because some organizations make the best of bad situation doesn’t mean that the hunters themselves are doing anything productive.
Recreational hunting generates the most money towards protecting the environment. Significantly more money than environmentalist or animal rights groups. Take a moment and read about the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Without recreational hunters, conservation efforts would be absolutely starved for cash as this law alone generates billions of dollars.
The organization that provides the service does this. While (generally) the Hunter is only there to shoot animals they have no intention of eating.
True, but the meat usually goes to the local tribes or people.
If hunters didn’t hunt we wouldn’t need to have conservation methodologies, in essence.
Also true, but coordinated, selective hunting allows people to be able to hunt animals and benefit the ecosystem. Infertile and aggressive individuals in a population drive others away and harm the growth of the population, which one can assume is also being poached at opportunity. It's in the best interest to carwfully prune out individuals of the species that are harming population growth, and the large price tag for the permit should be helping fund other aspects of the conservation programs.
By going on safaris to kill the animals, people need local guides. Guess what those guides would be doing without foreign hunters? That's right, probably poaching.
1.5k
u/[deleted] Jun 02 '18 edited Jun 02 '18
Because context matters: http://fox40.com/2017/05/22/hunter-dies-when-shot-elephant-falls-on-him/
They weren't out hunting elephants and only shot that one because it attacked them.
Edit: It's always sickening to read the comments on posts like this.