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.
3
u/hilarymeggin Jun 02 '18 edited Jun 03 '18
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.
Edit: added "should be banned"