RIP Cecil king of the jungle

Yes, but we see that the non-lethal tourism isn't keeping the animals alive...the reason African lions are threatened isn't because of poaching or hunting, they are threatened because of the loss of their habitat and natural prey and that is due to the development of Africa.

Africa is going to continue to develop so that habitat is going to continue to shrink, if there isn't another reason to ensure their survival, the species will continue to shrink in numbers.

 

Terrible analogy. Also there are other experts who view it as extremely beneficial. In some African nations it has been extremely successful and in others it has made little difference, ultimately relying upon the rules put in place. There simply isn't enough money otherwise. Large tracts of land are being bought, guarded and saved with the money from big game hunting. Without that a greater number of them would be killed by poachers, villagers, farmers and urbanization.

 

Right, the main cause is the loss of habitat. So preserving land for lions that is profitable is all the more important, and non-lethal tourism is a more effective way to do that.

 

Like I've said, some money from big game hunts actually does good for the species. But nonlethal tourism is much better at gaining money to buy the large tracts of land.

I'll also agree that poachers are far worse than big game hunters (though sometimes they overlap). But that doesn't make big game hunters saviors by any means despite that their spending on their ego stroking idea of recreation does help in a less efficient way and allow them to sidestep their guilt over what their doing.

 

Link?

 

I linked it in the post where the article I linked shows that nonlethal tourism makes billions of dollars while big game hunting makes only millions. RocketsJudoka also talked about before I did in his post.

 

The Southern White Rhino is living proof that trophy hunting can be beneficial and successful in bringing a species back from the brink of extinction.

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't support it under all circumstances, but it definitely has a place in the broader conservation effort.

Also, it is important to understand the impact trophy hunting can have on the local people and government supporting/tolerating poaching, not just the dollars directly brought in by the hunt:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/opinion/a-trophy-hunt-thats-good-for-rhinos.html

 

And of course there are a lot more zoos. Nonlethal tourism isn't viable everywhere. It's not like people are going to go to Zimbabwe to visit a zoo.

 

Lots of good info and links in these articles by the good people at National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tinction-opinion-animals-africa-conservation/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150729-lion-trophy-hunting-conservation-animals-cecil/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-killing-trophy-hunting-conservation-animals/

 

Awwww, did I not agree with you 100%? So sorry! I'll see if I can do better.

Props and mad thx to people sharing useful links, like the nat. geo. stuff and the white rhino story. High quality.

Complex issue, which is exactly what twitter rage always fails to handle.

 

I agree with that, but they might go on Safari there at a game preserve, and pay well to do it.

 

Following up on this tangent. When I went to Thailand to do relief work right after the tsunami most of the people there were either there for relief work or for sex tourism. In Patong, the main tourist city on Phuket Island, I would guess that there were far more people there for sex tourism than doing relief work. From talking to locals most weren't getting much financial aid from their government or NGO's and it wasn't much of a secret that sex tourism was the only thing keeping the local economy afloat as they dealt with the aftermath of the tsunami.

 

I accept the arguments that big game trophy hunting has helped with conservation efforts and I agree this is a complex issue. I'm still not clear though is whether eco-tourism and non-lethal safaris could do the same thing and I think as much as we look at the example of white rhinos we should also consider the example of Kenya which ended big game hunting. There are big differences between the different parts of Africa and I will admit I don't know enough about this issue to say how much of a difference doing away with big game hunting altogether would affect conservation.

I still personally don't like the idea of big game hunting. I don't see what the thrill is of killing a majestic and rare animal and think it is especially cruel and unnecessary the way it was done to Cecil.

Leaving aside personal feelings and the question of what role big game hunting plays in conservation let's not forget that the killing Cecil was illegal and violated Zimbabwean laws and possibly US laws. I agree that Palmer could be innocent and deserves a fair trial but as part of that we should consider that he has hunted black bears illegally, that it is questionable that an experienced hunter would not notice a collar on an animal, and that it sounds like he tried to cover up the killing of Cecil by destroying the collar. So even if he is innocent and it is his guides' fault at the minimum he is a bad hunter and knew what he did was wrong.

 

I accept that hunting for sport has a place when it comes to conservation as a whole ... doesn't mean I have to like it.

It also seems really wrong to me for an American to go into another country and kill an animal that is endangered/protected for the thrill of it. I say that making no claims whatsoever over where this ranks in the long list of horrible **** going on in the world.