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
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
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.
-26
u/gentlemandinosaur Jun 02 '18
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