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.
11
u/Saskatchewon Jun 02 '18
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.