How so? Elaborate. You state that trophy hunting which at the end of the day is killing a threatened species will actually benefit the species in the long run because it funds their conservation measures. So harming the threatened species eventually saves the species. At least according to your logic. So, hypothetically, if some child prostitute service donates it's profit to saving child prostitutes in general then according to your logic it should be acceptable to buy the services of child prostitutes as long as the money goes into saving them eventually. Maybe my inductive reasoning skills are not as sharp as yours so you need to explicitly show me were my logic and reason is neither sound nor valid.
You quoted a part of a discussion about why eating an animal after hunting it for sport does little in my opinion to justify the morality of killing it. Your mind is like a pinball machine. I never compared safari to whitetail.
Actually not that much money in comparison. More money can be made through zoo visits and donations, outright donations etc. All of that can be made without killing animals of that threatened species.
A dentist who paid 50,000 dollars to across the world just to kill life that's endangered for it's head and fur... p.o.s. Not like the guy can take his trophy with him. Yet he feels the need to kill of a species to get jollies off.
Sigh.. They hunt old big game that is beyond breeding age... In a number of cases the hunting of the big game actually saves the big game. Farmers are not going to tolerate them on their farm land otherwise.
Have you been to Africa? There are many protected farms/hunting areas that survive off of big game hunting. The money allows for the purchase of more land and guards to keep poachers off the land that otherwise wouldn't be guarded. The animals killed meet specific qualifications. Also the meat is usually given to villagers. Out right donations were not sufficient, zoo donations were not either. The land and animals were severely compromised. Find it odd for some weirdo to pay $50,000 to shoot an elderly lion or almost $700,000 to kill a black rhino; but those weirdos in many cases are doing more to ensure the survival of the species in the wild than virtually anyone else.
Cecil had cubs. I don't think he was beyond breeding age. Furthermore when the leader of the pride dies the new leader will kill all of the cubs that were the offspring of the old leader. Trying to pretend that killing a threatened big game species is actually good for the threatened species isn't really going to fly.
Doesn't make any difference because it could have easily gone the other way, but I saw a story where Cecil's brother is protecting Cecil's cubs, which is good news. http://www.inquisitr.com/2298189/cecil-the-lions-brother-is-protecting-his-cubs/ And as far as people being more passionate about photogenic species like lions, this has always been true, and understood. This was entirely predictable. All the people pretending like it is some new, illogical behavior are only displaying their own tone-deafness.
Actually I have been to Africa. That doesn't really change anything about the threatened species. Yes, I agree that donations and zoo donations weren't enough. Big Game hunting money that goes toward conservation hasn't been enough either. There are other programs such as Chimp Eden where people go on tours to see the chimps, pay money to support the chimps, are able to actually work at the preserve that money helps keep them alive in a natural habitat. These are generally chimps that were at one time in captivity so it's a little different, but these types of programs have worked. Like I said in another post, any money from these big game hunts that benefit the animals is good that goes along with the bad, but I would be willing to bet the number of people who decide they want to help endangered and threatened species and decide the best way to help save these animals is by going to kill a Lion one day and then an Elephant the next day is pretty close to zero. Now maybe because of what this jackass dentist did, plenty of people will start donating to help conservation programs and that is some good that can come of this. I would rather that people who feel the need to prove themselves by facing down a threatened animal actually prove themselves by going there and facing down poachers. It would do a lot more good for everyone.
Double sigh. The killing of Cecil was wrong. Whether it was an accident or not needs to be investigated. But the economics is the same. Big game hunting helps conservation. No one is going to pay $50,000 to go to a zoo.
I heard a discussion on this on the radio the other day from a wildlife photographer, forgot his name. He pointed out that Kenya has stopped big game hunting primarily because of the economics. While big game hunting brings in money they are also making a lot of money from eco-tourism and non-lethal safaris. Killing charismatic big game to them would be like killing the goose that laid the golden egg since you get a one time payoff. A popular animal like Cecil makes them far more money alive than he does dead. According to the photographer "big game hunting makes them millions with an 'm'. Non-lethal safaris makes them billions with a 'b'."
Not really that much help. Each year between 50 and 60 million visit Africa as a tourist. Less than 20,000 of those are big game hunters. So tourists that do non-lethal safaris, other eco-tourism trips, provide way more for conservation than the relatively small amount of folks who go there to kill the big game. Furthermore the Lion population has gone down 30% since 1985. I will say that Elephant poaching is a bigger problem, but I don't think the conservation aspect of big game hunting is irreplaceable and isn't really that significant of the portion of funds used for conservation.
Just want to point out that it should be "big game hunting makes them illions with an 'm'. Non-lethal safaris makes them illions with a 'b'." :grin:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pHKDaDBFOPw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I just can't see people getting worked up about someone shooting something that would eat them if given half the opportunity to do so.
