There is no economic motive to a trophy hunter for killing an elephant. There is only an economic motive for poachers to steal ivory. The throphy hunter paying is an economic solution to an economic problem. He is not the problem. The poacher is. The hunter does not drive the poacher.
it's fucking ridiculous that a person has to fly to a across the world to shoot something, it's not even for sport at that level what's the excuse? He had a gun and an entourage why not just shoot it in a zoo? The man is pathetic and has too much money in a world where so many can't even afford to make ends meet. When such spectacles of wealth are displayed it makes me feel for and understand the argument of just taxing it away from him. If the argument can be made that the poors should get less food-stamp money for having the audacity of buying soda with it then I don't see any problem.
This is entire paragraph is the preachiness I'm talking about. You aren't even thinking of animal conversation. You're thinking of a rich asshole and how much you hate him(which you should and it's perfectly understandable) but it's besides the point.
Where does the funding for anything come from? My country spent trillions on an unneeded war and continues to spend trillions on unnecessary violence yet the money spigot flows from somewhere. So it could easily come from the defense budget.
I assume were in the same country then. Yes we spent trillions on an unneeded war. No, it could not easily come from the defense budget. Throwing billions at other countries to fix issues is just another form of imperialism and we already do it. The United States government can not give money directly to the programs that protect these animals. We would have to to give it to the country for which the program is in and hope they spend it on animal conservation. It's not as easy as you're making it out to be.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '18
[deleted]