Backlash over hunt

[Zombie_Babies]

First of all, I hope this isn't out of bounds for this board - if it is, please accept my apology and lock.

Linky-dinky.

So this gal goes on a legal safari in South Africa - spending many thousands of dollars that will go toward conservation practices and actually protecting the animals she was hunting - and now the South African people are petitioning for her to be banned from ever entering the country again.

I'm gonna step outside of my standard 'don't say a lot so as to not lead the discussion' philosophy for a moment to say this: These people have no idea what it is they're talking about. Money from hunting goes toward conservation efforts - including anti poaching initiatives. The meat is donated to locals and eaten. In poor areas people poach because the demand for parts of these animals is high and they can then make money to pay for food for their families. What hunting here does is give those same locals with wilderness expertise paying jobs as trackers, cooks, whatever - well paying and well tipped jobs. This money means they don't need to illegally kill animals or illegally kill endangered animals. In short, this woman they're decrying has likely done far more for the animals they profess to love than any of them have. They're just too ignorant and stoopid to understand it.

Hunters spend money and that money is used to protect the environment and the animals in it. Most people who whine about the practice have donated exactly $0 to do the same. You tell me who's more concerned about animal welfare.

 

[Kramodlog]

You know, she could go on the same safari, spend the same money, but just take pics. It would conserve a bit more than hunting.

 

[Umbran]

All you say is fine.. if you're hunting something that isn't already vulnerable or endangered. Once you are talking about hunting endangered species, the money you bring in probably does not offset the damage you do to the species in hunting.

For example - there are probably about 20 Siberian tigers left in all of China. Even if you pay a million dollars a head, you don't help save the species by killing them. The math just doesn't work that way. There is no amount of money that will offset the loss to the species' genetic pool.

If you're really interested in conservation of endangered species, you go on safari with a *camera*, not a rifle.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

You know, she could go on the same safari, spend the same money, but just take pics. It would conserve a bit more than hunting.

Except that picture safaris don't cost the same amount, don't employ the same amount of native people, don't sendnearly as much money to the national conservancy agencies, provide no meat for the hungry villagers and therefore do not offer the same incentives actual hunts do.

All you say is fine.. if you're hunting something that isn't already vulnerable or endangered. Once you are talking about hunting endangered species, the money you bring in probably does not offset the damage you do to the species in hunting.

For example - there are probably about 20 Siberian tigers left in all of China. Even if you pay a million dollars a head, you don't help save the species by killing them. The math just doesn't work that way. There is no amount of money that will offset the loss to the species' genetic pool.

If you're really interested in conservation of endangered species, you go on safari with a *camera*, not a rifle.

Lions are not endangered. They are classified as 'vulnerable' which means that they will end up on the endangered list unless the circumstances that have made them vulnerable change. Those circumstances are habitat loss and poaching. Hunting actually alleviates poaching for the reasons I've already explained. Habitat loss is a little more complex and, in reality, makes the case for a smaller number of animals. While it may be nice to have 3 billion lions roaming the African plains and hills, well, there just isn't enough room for them.

Additionally, Kruger National Park is in South Africa and it's purpose is to protect species that need protection. Safari money, in part, pays for the park and those who patrol it.

 

[Kramodlog]

Except that picture safaris don't cost the same amount, don't employ the same amount of native people, don't sendnearly as much money to the national conservancy agencies, provide no meat for the hungry villagers and therefore do not offer the same incentives actual hunts do.

My god, it is has if they need whitey to save them.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

My god, it is has if they need whitey to save them.

Nope. They just need money and this provides a source that doesn't involve selling rhino horns to the Chinese.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hunters spend money and that money is used to protect the environment and the animals in it. Most people who whine about the practice have donated exactly $0 to do the same. You tell me who's more concerned about animal welfare.

I know plenty of people who oppose hunting and donate money to preserve wildlife.

I don't know, i have trouble sympathizing with people who want to go to other peoples' countries and hunt their wild life, then act surprised when there is a reaction.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

I know plenty of people who oppose hunting and donate money to preserve wildlife.

I don't know, i have trouble sympathizing with people who want to go to other peoples' countries and hunt their wild life, then act surprised when there is a reaction.

Why shouldn't she be surprised? The country facilitated her hunt. Without the laws South Africa has in place regarding her hunt she wouldn't have been able to do it. The people employed by the agency she used for her safari took her money, the villagers took the meat and the gov't gladly accepted her license fees. So yeah, why shouldn't she be surprised that now they're pretending none of that happened and that she's some sort of globe trotting murderer? They played a pretty big part, you know.

Srsly, what do you think? Do you think you can just hop a plane over to Africa with a rifle and shoot whatever the hell you want or something? Safaris are heavily regulated. Do you know why? Hunting money does a lot for these countries so they make sure that hunters can come back again and again. They're wanted. They're economically needed. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

 

[Umbran]

Except that picture safaris don't cost the same amount, don't employ the same amount of native people, don't sendnearly as much money to the national conservancy agencies, provide no meat for the hungry villagers and therefore do not offer the same incentives actual hunts do.

The food needs of villagers can be handled in far more economical and sustainable ways. They likely need a steady stream of lentils far more than they need an occasional dead lion carcass.

What is charged for safaris and how that money is doled out is, of course, out of our hands. But my understanding of the biological needs is that the animals would be better served by higher priced or more photo safaris than by hunting.

Lions are not endangered.

Yes, and I noted, "if you're hunting something that isn't already vulnerable or endangered." So, that's covered.

Those circumstances are habitat loss and poaching. Hunting actually alleviates poaching for the reasons I've already explained.

I would have to see a pretty solid economic breakdown to accept that assertion. My prior understanding is that hunting safaris may be intended or claimed to have the effects you claim, but the reality is that they are not effective enough in providing protection to justify the losses. Hunting safaris simply don't pull their own weight.

Note that I'm not against hunting in general. In most of North America, deer are by no means endangered, and frequently overcrowd because they lack predators. By all means, hunt them for sport. But vulnerable and endangered species need solutions that don't include killing the very thing you intend to preserve.

Habitat loss is a little more complex and, in reality, makes the case for a smaller number of animals. While it may be nice to have 3 billion lions roaming the African plains and hills, well, there just isn't enough room for them.

By that logic, we solve the problem by simply removing *all* the habitat, and reduce the population to zero! Problem solved!

If the goal is to preserve the species, and the problem in doing that is habitat loss, the solution is not reduction in numbers, but in reversing the habitat loss. You may need to do some population management in the short term if overcrowding occurs, but unless *everywhere* is overcrowded, relocation is a better response than hunting.

Safari money, in part, pays for the park and those who patrol it.

Well, let's find a way to increase the volume on the less damaging eco-tourism safaris, rather than kill species that are in trouble!

 

[Umbran]

Except that picture safaris don't cost the same amount, don't employ the same amount of native people, don't sendnearly as much money to the national conservancy agencies, provide no meat for the hungry villagers and therefore do not offer the same incentives actual hunts do.

The food needs of villagers can be handled in far more economical and sustainable ways. They likely need a steady stream of lentils far more than they need an occasional dead lion carcass.

What is charged for safaris and how that money is doled out is, of course, out of our hands. But my understanding of the biological needs is that the animals would be better served by higher priced or more photo safaris than by hunting.

Lions are not endangered.

Yes, and I noted, "if you're hunting something that isn't already vulnerable or endangered." So, that's covered.

Those circumstances are habitat loss and poaching. Hunting actually alleviates poaching for the reasons I've already explained.

I would have to see a pretty solid economic breakdown to accept that assertion. My prior understanding is that hunting safaris may be intended or claimed to have the effects you claim, but the reality is that they are not effective enough in providing protection to justify the losses. Hunting safaris simply don't pull their own weight.

Note that I'm not against hunting in general. In most of North America, deer are by no means endangered, and frequently overcrowd because they lack predators. By all means, hunt them for sport. But vulnerable and endangered species need solutions that don't include killing the very thing you intend to preserve.

Habitat loss is a little more complex and, in reality, makes the case for a smaller number of animals. While it may be nice to have 3 billion lions roaming the African plains and hills, well, there just isn't enough room for them.

By that logic, we solve the problem by simply removing *all* the habitat, and reduce the population to zero! Problem solved!

If the goal is to preserve the species, and the problem in doing that is habitat loss, the solution is not reduction in numbers, but in reversing the habitat loss. You may need to do some population management in the short term if overcrowding occurs, but unless *everywhere* is overcrowded, relocation is a better response than hunting.

Safari money, in part, pays for the park and those who patrol it.

Well, let's find a way to increase the volume on the less damaging eco-tourism safaris, rather than kill species that are in trouble!