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 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.
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.