This has jumped the shark. There is nothing wrong with big game hunting when done responsibly. Indeed it plays a huge part in the preservation of the various species.
Actually, no. You said. Then you said. So, you changed two things. 1) You made the predator hungry 2) You went from "half an opportunity" to "an opportunity" Um, no. Learn to use words properly. They help. You said. This seems more about your lack of ability to understand other people's viewpoint on this issue, and not about your personal feelings/opinion's on it. And yeah, all of it *is* relevant to that. I'd ask you the same question, but I already know the answer.
Truth. Destroyed the Texans forum almost highhandedly. He and Remii could basically take down this entire site if they wanted. Let's hope they don't join forces.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#ThisIsCNN">#ThisIsCNN</a> <a href="http://t.co/IPdr0e3jy7" title="http://twitter.com/CaptYonah/status/627582795376799744/photo/1">pic.twitter.com/IPdr0e3jy7</a></p>— Carl Gustav (@CaptYonah) <a href="https://twitter.com/CaptYonah/status/627582795376799744" data-datetime="2015-08-01T20:52:52+00:00">August 1, 2015</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species. Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies. In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. Still, the elephants of Zimbabwe and the white rhinos of South Africa seem to suggest that it is possible for conservation and trophy hunting to coexist, at least in principle. It is indeed a tricky, but not impossible, balance to strike. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/
It's an assertion of logic, a demand for something (like food or trophies) creates a financial incentive to supply (breed) it. But if you insist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/11771112/Trophy-hunting-can-be-a-lifeline-for-Africas-wildlife.html
Pretty weak sauce. You guys can find an article citing one paper written ten years ago suggesting it's possible the practice is beneficial? Mkay. Do 97% of scientists agree that trophy hunting is good for threatened species?
I could go really dark with analogies but I won't. As others have said it's like claiming child prostitution in Thailand or other places helps women. Yes money from tourists who go to partake in that do spend their money in the economy, and the govt. makes money off of that, and that money can be used to provide services to women doesn't really mean that the sex tourism trade is a good thing for women, and that practitioners of that trade are doing a lot to help women out. The truth is that some money from big game hunting does help conservation, but it isn't the main cause that helps those species. The number of people who go and kill big game in an effort to save the species would be close to zero. It also does damage to the species, and it'd be a hard case to prove that the good outweighed the harm. All the claim really does is ease some of the guilt that big game hunters try to avoid by allowing them to pretend like their doing a huge favor the species that they are killing. Here's what we know. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/29/cecil-the-lion-does-killing-lions-help-save-them.html So while big game hunting does some good it is 0.1% as good as the revenue from nonlethal tourism. So basically big game hunting does very little for the conservation of these species, and can actually hurt if it cuts down on the nonlethal tourism which is far more helpful towards the preservation of the species.
Honestly the child prostitution thing is a terrible analogy. If lion populations matched deer pops and those of other often hunted animals then it wouldn't bother me much at all. It's the scarcity of these animals, how majestic they are in nature, and the fact that poaching/hunting is what has contributed to put these animals in a threatened status that gets my attention. I'd be all for paid trophy hunts if that was proven to actually increase the populations and habitats of lions in these countries. It sounds to me like an idea that some people want to believe works because capitalism and they just like killing things for sport as part of this nutty gun culture in America.
If the animal is endangered due to overhunting, you might be right, but in most cases, the animals are endangered due to loss of habitat. If there is a market for hunting them, it gives an incentive for people to have them on their property and make sure they stay alive. Without that, they won't have them on their property and they run the risk of disappearing forever outside of zoos. If not for a market for selling buffalo meat, would that animal have made a comeback in the US? I really don't think it would have. If large threatened animals don't have a purpose, people probably won't ensure their survival. If not for hunting, lions really don't have a purpose that people care about.
I think it's a poor analogy in as far as threatened species being compared to child sex trafficking. But as far as to the benefit that the victims get, it's pretty spot on. Neither are truly beneficial, and both cause harm.
Well we see by the stats that it's much more profitable to have non-lethal tourism for the animals, so if making something profitable is the way to go to increase the habitat for these animals, then nonlethal tourism way more effective at that.
