International Trump admin - Sure, bring your lions back.....

[second sight]

They killed it because that guy had an ass ton of money, and they need money.

no way they took a bull in his prime out of breeding

 

[Limbo Pete]

no way they took a bull in his prime out of breeding

Which matters not at all to my point

 

[Slick_36]

Which matters not at all to my point

Well the problem is if the bull can't breed but is still fighting with males that can, it's going to hurt the population which needs all the help it can get. That said I'm absolutely against the need to bring a trophy to the states. Pretty sure that was one of the first things Trump went to change in office regarding elephants. No surprise his family does big game hunting.

 

[FinalFight]

Trophy hunting is not the solution to Africa’s wildlife conservation challenges

For decades, the public has been fed the myth that trophy hunting is absolutely necessary for sustainable conservation in Africa. Some sections of the academy, as well as the hunting lobby, continue to argue that banning trophy hunting will have a negative effect on wildlife biodiversity.

Their rationale is that trophy hunting contributes a significant amount of revenue, which African countries rely on for funding wildlife conservation. In essence the argument is: a few animals are sacrificed through regulated quotas for the greater good of the species. This opens the door for Western tourists to shoot charismatic mega-fauna and make a virtue of it.

In reality, trophy hunting revenues make up a very small percentage of total tourism revenues in Africa. For most African countries with an active trophy hunting industry, among them South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Namibia, the industry generates only between 0.3% and 5% of total tourism revenues. Clearly, trophy hunting’s economic importance is often overstated.

It’s also claimed by proponents that local communities benefit significantly from trophy hunting. The evidence suggests otherwise. A 2013 analysis of literature on the economics of trophy hunting done by Economists at Large, a network of economists who contribute their expertise to economic questions that are of public interest, showed that communities in the areas where hunting occurs derive little benefit from this revenue. On average communities receive only about 3% of the gross revenue from trophy hunting.

Another line of argument is that non-consumptive forms of wildlife tourism are not lucrative enough to sustain conservation efforts. The hunting lobby has therefore built a narrative where hunting is the only viable means of financing sustainable conservation in Africa.

I recently completed a book chapter in which I explore these and other claims made by the hunters, focusing in particular on how they choose their words to rationalize and sanitize their pastime.

Trophy hunting’s paradoxes
Trophy hunters often claim that they kill animals because they love animals. They rationalize their choice, for instance, by arguing that trophy hunting allows broader animal populations to be conserved.

As I argued in my chapter, the paradox of killing an animal you allegedly “love” cannot be resolved in the sphere of ethics.

In the chapter I explore the words that are used by hunters as euphemisms to describe trophy hunting, while avoiding the word “killing”. Examples include words like “harvesting” and “taking” that serve to sanitize killing. This “euphemization” is exemplified by Walter Palmer, who shot the beloved Zimbabwean lion, Cecil, in the infamous “Cecilgate” incident. Palmer issued a statement in response to the outcry, stating:

To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted. I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite…

This choice of words isn’t accidental. The effect is that we lose sight of what’s actually being done to lions, rhinos, elephants, and other precious species.

Alternatives and the way forward
The proponents of trophy hunting claim that there are no viable alternatives for Africa. They suggest that non-consumptive forms of wildlife tourism such as photo-safaris, where tourists view and photograph animals, do not generate sufficient benefits to justify keeping the wildlife habitat. If we stop trophy hunting, they say, wildlife will lose its economic value for local communities. Wildlife habitat will be lost to other land uses.

The truth is that well managed, non-consumptive wildlife tourism is sufficient for funding and managing conservation. Botswana, for example, which in 2014 banned all commercial hunting in favor of photo-tourism, continues to thrive. In a 2017 study, residents of Mababe village in Botswana noted that, compared to hunting, which is seasonal, photographic camps were more beneficial to the community because people are employed all year round.

Trophy hunting is not the solution to Africa’s wildlife conservation challenges. Proper governance, characterized by accountability, rigorous, evidence-based policies and actions, and driven by a genuine appreciation of the intrinsic – not just economic – value of Africa’s majestic fauna, is.

Muchazondida Mkono, Research Fellow (Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow), Business School, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


https://qz.com/africa/1621198/trophy-hunting-cant-fix-africas-wildlife-conservation-challenge/

 

[Limbo Pete]

Well the problem is if the bull can't breed but is still fighting with males that can, it's going to hurt the population which needs all the help it can get. That said I'm absolutely against the need to bring a trophy to the states. Pretty sure that was one of the first things Trump went to change in office regarding elephants. No surprise his family does big game hunting.

And I get that. Conservation gets put in a hard spot. But that's just the thing, it's that difficult position that makes such drastic measures viable, and people with a boner for killing things like, well, critically endangered rhinos fill in the void.

 

[MetalGearTrump]

I kill animals and eat them. Sometimes I hang their heads on the wall. It's perfectly legal. So whatever Lions or other animals are being killed by legal means and allowed back into the country, that's no ones business.

Poaching animals means killing them illegally. From a conservation standpoint... they arent killing animals in their prime as mentioned earlier. Just another outrage thread from someone who just doesnt like hunting

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Sickening. What kind of fucking asshole shoots a majestic animal like a lion?

 

[cincymma79]

Issue with his argument is it points a massive brush over a international issue with very different dynamics in different country's(different animals, different incentives to poach, different environments etc). Like sure poaching CAN be good and it's true many aren't aware that's a possibility but this also serves as justification for unsustainable practices. There are no doubt places that sytem can and does work, generally though it depends on people not taking advantage. Also ignores the fact the illegal poachers are going to come anyway and how the funding would or wouldn't hinder this. They are also assuming the projects are sincere in many cases which it is not.

Look they are about to do the same with the Amazon in Brazil. Destroy it using protecting it as a pretext when they have no such intentions. The fact the argument makes sense and can be accurate is why it's so dangerous.

So aside from all the times it has worked all over the world over and over again it doesn’t work. Got it

 

[woodguyatl]

Big game hunting is the epitome of a renewable resource and actually the perfect solution to many of the problems that plague these species

I’m not sure how this is true the number of big game species that are extinct or on the verge.

 

[Andy Capp]

Lions are not endangered

Is that right? Maybe not according to the legal definition, but it's clearly only a matter of time at the present rate of decline.
African Lion Populations Drop 42 Percent in Past 21 Years
"The information comes through the latest update to the IUCN Red List, which continues to identify lions as “vulnerable to extinction” (one step short of endangered). That’s mainly because conservation efforts have resulted in an 11 percent growth in lion populations in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Most of these southern populations live within fenced reserves which have reached their carrying capacity and can’t support additional lion numbers.

Outside of those four nations, things aren’t as good. Lion populations have fallen in most other countries, with an average decline of 60 percent. The worst hit has been the West African population of lions, which has now been classified as critically endangered. A study published last year found that only about 400 lions remained in the 17 nations of West Africa."


This is aside from the sad fact that as the largest ones are taken out of the breeding pool, the average size of lions has decreased, something like 20% in as many decades. Similar issues exist in other environments where the top predators are extracted from the gene pool and it's surprising people aren't more invested in preventing it.

And this is pretty depressing,
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ching-the-brutal-new-threat-to-africas-prides

 

[MiniCraque]

Is that right? Maybe not according to the legal definition, but it's clearly only a matter of time at the present rate of decline.
African Lion Populations Drop 42 Percent in Past 21 Years
"The information comes through the latest update to the IUCN Red List, which continues to identify lions as “vulnerable to extinction” (one step short of endangered). That’s mainly because conservation efforts have resulted in an 11 percent growth in lion populations in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Most of these southern populations live within fenced reserves which have reached their carrying capacity and can’t support additional lion numbers.

Outside of those four nations, things aren’t as good. Lion populations have fallen in most other countries, with an average decline of 60 percent. The worst hit has been the West African population of lions, which has now been classified as critically endangered. A study published last year found that only about 400 lions remained in the 17 nations of West Africa."


This is aside from the sad fact that as the largest ones are taken out of the breeding pool, the average size of lions has decreased, something like 20% in as many decades. Similar issues exist in other environments where the top predators are extracted from the gene pool and it's surprising people aren't more invested in preventing it.

And this is pretty depressing,
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ching-the-brutal-new-threat-to-africas-prides

Justifying hunting an animal species by saying it's not technically endangered is mind-blowingly retarded.

How do you think they become endangered in the first place for fucks sake?

It's like saying "I don't have lung cancer so it's ok to smoke".

 

[Deleted member 159002]

people collect all kinds of things and want to fill in the missing pieces, trophy hunters are no different.

Most things people collect are not intelligent and do not feel pain. That makes trophy hunters very different from most other people who collect things

 

[jk7707]

All I can say is, if your primary motivation for killing an animal is to cut off its head to take home as a trophy, then you are fucked in the head.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Big game hunting is the epitome of a renewable resource and actually the perfect solution to many of the problems that plague these species

One of the biggest problem with human Trophy Hunting is we turn nature on its head and make the species hunted sicker and weaker.

Evolution has always seen Alpha Predators seek out the weakest in the group and take them out. Thereby making the entire population better, healthier and stronger. It took an alpha predator to take down even typically the weaker, targeted prey.

Humans do the opposite with our high powered, technology aided hunting. Even the most weak hunter can and does target the most alpha, healthy prey in the group.

Each kill by human hunters diminished the group targeted. We have seen regression as animals get smaller and more sickly.

A perfect example is to watch the Wolves of Chernobyl and see how even serious radiation is less harmful to the population than human hunters are. Once you remove the human hunters the packs returns to size and strength not seen for ages.

 

[TheLastSpartan]

Ppl who fly to Africa to hunt "big game" are scumbags. End of story.

 

[jx820]

I’m not for hunting as a sport, it the fuckers are going to kill the animal anyways, so what’s the difference if they bring back a so called trophy?

It makes the prospect of the hunt more appealing. It adds benefits. A guy who might not have thought it was worth it for a picture might go for it if he can bring home a skin to drape over his love doll or whatever these guys do with them.

 

[TribalDrumz]

This makes me rage even thinking about some redneck country pos going to Africa to kill the largest creature they can find to kill just for sport...

 

[Broke Lester]

It makes the prospect of the hunt more appealing. It adds benefits. A guy who might not have thought it was worth it for a picture might go for it if he can bring home a skin to drape over his love doll or whatever these guys do with them.

I don't know, but I was thinking this is a rich mans sport and that they have the money and means to smuggle their trophy back anyways, but I can see your point and it probably would lead to plenty more hunters going for it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If only factory-farming generated as much concern.

 

[Andy Capp]

If only factory-farming generated as much concern.

The ruinous decline in number of all the top predators and other kings of their respective habitats is by far the greater problem, IMO. It's going to throw the whole ecosystem into chaos for a very long time.

Not that industrial and factory farms aren't heinous, because they are, but there really is quite a difference in harm done if there isn't a huge turnaround by the time you read this, pretty much. I think it's already too late but I always try to be a bit optimistic.

I have been watching people warning other people about the climate and pollution since I was a kid in the 70s and seeing basically nobody give a fuck so I don't think anything is going to to change anytime soon. People will wait until the whole planet is engulfed in crisis, and then yell, "Why don't you help us?" to whoever will listen.

Edit: I also think if it weren't for the greed and selfishness of people who already have more than they will ever need, and the people who sell their souls to them, we would have done better. So, if you are ever wondering why I hate the very rich, wonder no more.