Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6221923" data-attributes="member: 177">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.Yes, and I noted, "if you're hunting something that isn't already vulnerable or endangered."  So, that's covered.  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.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.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!</blockquote>

Verification