There is a massive difference in that the animals in question are endangered. We're not talking about someone going out on a recreational deer hunt as they do in North America. Killing endangered animals should be made illegal and governments should instead focus on ecotourism to raise funds to sustain their game parks and the nearby communities that rely on their revenue. Its a win win situation for everyone, including the animals.
Hunting endangered species
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
The idea is fine when you have control of a relatively healthy population. Killing more animals isn't a solution when poaching, corruption and bribery are such huge issues.
If you could sort out those problems (which right now seem to be worse than ever) and guarantee that the money went into conservation and helping local communities it could work. Until then I don't see it being much of a benefit at all.
If you could sort out those problems (which right now seem to be worse than ever) and guarantee that the money went into conservation and helping local communities it could work. Until then I don't see it being much of a benefit at all.
How do you double down? What makes you think there's so much more money to be made from eco-tourism than they make now? Like I said, hunting taps a completely different - and clearly very lucrative - market.
Mudering endangered animals doesn't pose any moral dilemma for me, providing the end result is a bigger population of said animals. And there's good evidence that is the case, as per the links I posted above. Cruelty just isn't an issue. It's not as though wild animals have humane deaths if they're left to their own devices. Death by bullet is probably quicker and less painful than anything that would end their life naturally.
It's not even a moral dilemma - it a moral necessity if we are to preserve some of the iconic species for future generations. As for death by bullet, I think as humans we can do better than that. We are the dominant species and should take a responsible approach of being good shepherds of the preserving endangered species. This act of hunting exotic animals for pleasure whilst cloaked as an act of compassion is inefficient and irresponsible when there are more sustainable and humane methods available.
Well you say that but you haven't come up with any kind of compelling argument in favour of these alternatives. Where is this great un-tapped market of eco-tourists going to come from?
How certain are you that it can not only increase its current revenue but divert a sufficient amount of profits generated to wildlife conservation such that it will more than compensate for all the lost revenue from state sanctioned trophy hunting? (100% of which is spent on conservation)
I also don't understand how you can claim that stopping trophy hunting is a "moral necessity" to preserve rare animals for future generations when there's good evidence that the exact opposite is true.
I've not seen any cogent argument that killing endangered animals actually preserves them. It is obviously morally reprehensible to shoot the likes of Lions, just look at the Cecil uproar on social media last month as evidence of this.
On the other hand, there are thousands of well to do American, Euro, and Asian eco-tourists who flock to Africa each year - primarily to South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, and Namibia to pay top up market fees (as in upwards of $3k per night per person to go on Safari game drives in the African Bush. The amount of money going into these areas is staggering and is growing rapidly as the rich in the west get richer. There is plenty of money in that process to allow governments to tax the activity, then reapportion the funds to the communities in order to preserve the animals.
Social media is full of hysterical idiots and a bad barometer for common sense. I've posted links with evidence about the impact of regulated trophy hunting on animal population earlier on in the thread. It's also a very simple common sense argument. Giving a monetary value to endangered animals makes them a valued resource, that people will make an effort to protect. I've mentioned an example of someone paying $350k to shoot a rhino, with every cent spent on conservation. How quickly could your "doubling down" on eco-tourism generate that sort of money?
Like I said, all of the above can happen regardless. Trophy-hunting provides and additional revenue stream which taps a different market and generates a lot of money. It's not an either/or scenario.
The reaction on social media is actually very relevant - there are a lot of morons who overreact to that sort of thing but the general consensus even among level headed people is that such acts are morally reprehensible, especially when they are recorded for others to observe. It's clear that global society (well at least people in the developed world) strongly disapprove of this, which must be taken into consideration when evaluating the pros and cons of shooting iconic, endangered species - as must the subtext of human greed that underpins the high fees involved with game hunting.
There is also huge arguments for taking away monetary value to preseve animals, eg tusk removal.
I think while the logic / maths of the idea works, once there is profit to be made, regulation becomes impossible and a black market inevitably exists.
I also think the subtlety of the idea would be easily confused and we should educate solely conservation of endangered species. Disassociate all killing from certain species.
Now apply that argument to drugs...
Surely the best way to combat a black market is by a well regulated legal market, with profits going to a good cause? Ultimately, people are willing to pay a premium if they can indulge a hobby by legal, rather than illegal means. The legalisation of weed in the US is a great example of this. If all the money raised is used to make the planet a better place (funding the conservation of endangered species, in this instance) then it's a no-brainer IMO.
Nope. Drugs should be a personal choice with full individual responsibility. My whole social and political outlook is based on freedom of choice up to the point of societal damage.
I see this issue more akin to spiking people, which should be discouraged.
Apply it to rape? With profits going to rape crisis centres?
Correlating the slaughter of animals with rape of humans is about as powerful an argument for veganism as you're ever likely to hear!
Come on, moses. You kill fish to eat. You eat animals other people kill for you to eat. It's not that big a leap, morally, to killing an animal for its hide/horns. So long as they pay a big price, which ensures the species/habitat benefits as a result, what's the problem?
Anyway, my point about drugs was purely about your comment on the impossibility of regulating a black market, nothing to do with morals. We know for a fact this can be effectively done, with weed a good example.
@Pexbo eats pigeons 
The problem is that, the immorality aside, it creates a market for this sort of behaviour. Or at the very least it increases the size of the market, the value of dead endangered species and in turn increases the demand for legal, semi-legal and illegal killing. Zimbabwe is a prime example with over 5% of the lion population killed each year which is plainly unsustainable - that equates to about 50% of the current total population killed over a decade. Creating or boosting a market will only make the problem worse no matter what funds are raised and the evidence is that usually the money raised doesn't go to conservation or only a small proportion of it does in most countries.
Many other country have little hunting primarily due to plummeting lion numbers. South Africa is a bit "better" in that they breed most of the lions killed for the purposes of hunting - canned hunting they call it. Personally I think they should take it one step further and allow people to pay to hunt and kill those who pay to hunt and kill lions. Win win IMO
That's a good point.
It's an unpalatable concept, very hard to accept some guy with an urge to kill being given the right to do so because he has some money. Even if in the case cited above it might be beneficial.
I agree but allowing hunting is a very different black market to ivory. You could reduce hunting deaths to negligible numbers with regulation.
Some things are easier to control than others. Drugs are bordering on impossible so a well regulated and taxed legal market of some sort is the way to go IMO despite me having grave concerns as data coming from the legalisation of weed in the US suggests that usage particularly among the young goes up significantly - which is a huge worry.
If (as I said in my last post) they're not essential to their local ecosystem (apex predators often are though), what is wrong about the extinction of a species?
I would argue that stuff like this (state policy to keep rising deer populations to issue more hunting permits to generate more revenue) is worse than paying hundreds of thousands of dollars into conservation efforts to kill one animal.
(As you could guess) I'm against most hunting, I just don't see anything particularly bad about targeting 1 species over another.
They are all already funded by donations, sponsors and governments, and in some cases commercial activities.
South Africa funds its parks to the tune of over $200m a year. Namibia's parks generate over $150m. Other governments do similar in addition to other revenue they can generate. In many African countries the game reserves are the biggest tourism draw.
The risks/negatives involved in setting up a commercial game hunting venture is just not worth the few thousand dollars reward.
I'm not against hunting / killing for meat / recreational hunting, but only if they do so in a non sadistic way (like cutting an elephant's ivory while its still alive, or any other sort of animal cruelty like clubbing the walruses)
Surely the complete opposite is true.
Black markets, literally by definition, exist in direct proportion to the amount of regulation brought to bear by the state.
In a world where totally stopping wildlife hunts from happening (and more importantly, stopping local stakeholders from harming the endangered animals who have no value to them at present) was possible then I'd be all for it. We don't live in that world. The solution presented here is eminently rational to me.
It's an interesting moral grey area. Let's apply that logic to humans. In a village of 1000 would it be acceptable to kill about 100 weak,diseased males n females who if left to breed would probably weaken the village and become on a drain on valuable resources. In fact we don't really need a made up example. Overpopulation is a real concern and will affect everybody sooner rather than later. In the extreme scenario would it be moral to kill a billion of us for the greater good? I think the answer comes down to why we're keeping them alive in the first place. If it's a moral concern for animal life then surely any option that involves killing said animal should be discarded. If it's to ensure the largest population of the animal possible while taking into account socio-economic dynamics then killing them could be the best option. The moral aspect is why you'll find a lot of people who are completely ok with hunting to save ecosystems or eliminate pests yet completely against hunting for sport.
Yeah, but like I say, it's not me you have to convince, this is educating society about conservation, I'm not sure your logic won't get misconstrued and misappropriated, either by accident or on purpose.
Either way, this is still a regulation, with massive profits, as advertised. Prime black market territory.I just think a blanket ban would be easier to police and also send a better message.
And I'm not saying it's not rational, just not practical. We don't live in a world ruled by logic, sadly.
Could you though? How would policing it be different to now? I just think allowing some (the filthy rich!) to do something that most people can't reinforces the tiered society which jars with any conservation message in all of this. It's not wrong, just very expensive. I understand the logic, just think it'd be an impractical sell.
I think the latter makes more sense. Whatever it takes to maintain the numbers and - crucially - habitat of endangered species is the best approach. I just find it bizarre to be so precious about the life of individual wild animals when, as a society, we slaughter animals in such large numbers that have spent their lives in far worse conditions than the likes of Cecil the lion.
@Pexbo eats pigeons
You are totally right, but the lack of logic in how the world is run is everywhere, humans die needlessly and others defend the system that allows it to happen. I think this proposal, which would work logically just isn't the way to go about it, too many possible (and in my opinion therefore probable) ways for it to send the wrong message.
I'm sensing that this is the core concern here - that the message of "it's fine to kill endangered animals, as long as you're rich" will get out, which is doubly bad in that inherently that's a very right-wing message to send, and furthermore undercuts the message of conservation.
Intuitively it seems to me however that that has nothing to do whatsoever with the plight of the animals in question (as a species, not as individuals), and projecting our class conflicts onto them is somewhat unfair. As for the message of conservation, I suspect that for better funding for education efforts (which would come in part from the sale of these hunting licenses, as opposed to the zero revenue a total ban would bring in) would do a great deal to further that, particularly for those animals which are killed for their parts (e.g. rhino horn being prized by Chinese folks).
We are self-centered and hypocritical as a species for sure and most of our convenience and comfort is built on foundations of mass destruction to the planet. If we're going basing things on logic then the outcry over endangered animals itself is silly. Unless they are going to severely negatively impact ecosystems or local human populations why should we even care? I think it's stupid to put so much effort into something we don't "care" about. If not for moral reasons then why are we actively trying to keep these animals around?
Points in bond here are where the argument breaks down Pogue.
1) A cull never benefits a herd, unless the individual is carrying some sort of disease or threat to the other members. The ways in which animal populations interact and breed are very varied and so I'm making a pretty generalised point here, but there is an evolutionary strength behind aged rhinos exhibiting those kinds of behaviours. Those kind of behaviours protect the genetic pool of the herd from becoming weaker - ie. If an aged male can defeat another male then they're proving themselves better equipped to continue protecting the herd (to use one basic survival of the fittest scenario). Taking out these 'aged males' can drastically, and artificially, change the composition of the herd, therefore weakening its genetic pool and affecting its long term survivability going forward through the generations.
2) Money trails are notoriously shady around nature reserves and safari zones - there is never a guarantee that that money ends up in preservation at all, let alone the correct form of preservation. I also have a personal moral issue regarding assigning an animal a monetary value, but personal morals and ethics shouldn't really have much effect on these things.
3) Trophy hunting in no way strengthens conservation efforts, either short or long term, mainly due to the reason listed above. The only half argument for trophy hunting would revolve around killing off severely ill/injured animals, and even then you can never guarantee an animal wouldn't recover - and besides, who wants to pay several hundred thousand to kill an limping animal, where would the challenge and 'glory' be in that?
People are so naive, god love them.
A well known national nature nature reserve, and protected wetland, not a million miles from me, have 2 sponsored shoots each year - where paying invitees get a days shooting on the reserve in return for in or around 2 grand. They get to take 2 birds home with them and the rest is sold to local restaurants.
That sort of thing goes on up and down the country pretty regularly.
All hunting should be done in a sustainable manner.
If it needs to be culled anyway, they may aswell get $250k for it would be my view.
I don't understand trophy hunting whatsoever though.
A well known national nature nature reserve, and protected wetland, not a million miles from me, have 2 sponsored shoots each year - where paying invitees get a days shooting on the reserve in return for in or around 2 grand. They get to take 2 birds home with them and the rest is sold to local restaurants.
That sort of thing goes on up and down the country pretty regularly.
All hunting should be done in a sustainable manner.
If it needs to be culled anyway, they may aswell get $250k for it would be my view.
I don't understand trophy hunting whatsoever though.
I'm not sure the cull is really "needed", as such. The specific animal that was shot in the podcast I listened to had killed a couple of younger animals in the herd but, as @Waldner says, that's just nature doing its thang. In an ideal world, they'd definitely be better off being left to their own devices.
We don't live in an ideal world, though. So allowing trophy hunters to kill a handful of older males in return for raising money which can be used for preservation and - much more importantly - giving financial incentives for preserving their habitat seems like a small price to pay. I mean, feck it, I think it's arguably less morally wrong to shoot an elderly male rhino that has lived its life in freedom because you really want to mount its head on your wall than it is to get someone else to slaughter young hens/pigs that have been reared in appalling conditions on your behalf because you really want to eat meat.
I can't begin to relate to trophy hunters desire to mount an animal's head on their wall but I'm sure vegans are equally bemused by my fondness for steak. I eat meat but always try to source it from animals that have been reared in conditions as close to their natural habitat as possible. Plus I really enjoy fishing and will usually eat at least some of my catch. I don't shoot game (haven't done in ages, anyway) but would have no problem doing it, as I enjoy eating duck/pheasant etc. On this basis, my personal moral code allows me to gain pleasure from the death of animals so who am I to say other people can't do the same?
We don't live in an ideal world, though. So allowing trophy hunters to kill a handful of older males in return for raising money which can be used for preservation and - much more importantly - giving financial incentives for preserving their habitat seems like a small price to pay. I mean, feck it, I think it's arguably less morally wrong to shoot an elderly male rhino that has lived its life in freedom because you really want to mount its head on your wall than it is to get someone else to slaughter young hens/pigs that have been reared in appalling conditions on your behalf because you really want to eat meat.
I can't begin to relate to trophy hunters desire to mount an animal's head on their wall but I'm sure vegans are equally bemused by my fondness for steak. I eat meat but always try to source it from animals that have been reared in conditions as close to their natural habitat as possible. Plus I really enjoy fishing and will usually eat at least some of my catch. I don't shoot game (haven't done in ages, anyway) but would have no problem doing it, as I enjoy eating duck/pheasant etc. On this basis, my personal moral code allows me to gain pleasure from the death of animals so who am I to say other people can't do the same?
Last edited:
The money doesn't go to stopping poaching anyway (or hardly at all in the vast majority of places) and illegal hunting just expands the market, monetarises killing and makes the whole thing more socially unacceptable. I'm also a pragmatist - I love the way we have made smoking socially unacceptable as a way of regulation but I also think the war on drugs has been a futile defeat that requires some level of legalisation.
If funds were flowing in a major way to protect African wildlife from the other major causes of population decline (e.g. habiatat destruction and fragmentation) I'd be far less against legalised hunting. As is I think there must be a better way.
While I hate the mentality of killing for pleasure I don't have the energy to care if you monetarise something that needs to be done anyway.
Exactly, its like preparing to mow your lawn and your neighbour turns up and offers you money to do it for you because he loves cutting peoples lawns.
Clearly he's a deranged person but let him off I say!
Everyone I've heard talk about this who has any kind of inside knowledge on this says that this is exactly what is happening, so how can you assume it's not? I've posted links above to this effect, which people seem to keep ignoring. Here's a relevant quote:
The numbers don't lie. Introduce properly regulated trophy-hunting and you can reverse the population decline cause by the infringement of agricultural land onto the territory of endangered animals. Dramatically so, as you can see above.
Everyone I talk to with inside knowledge says that this is a load of crap and that very little of the money raised goes to conservation because in the vast majority of cases revenue from hunting goes into general revenue and doesn't directly fund preservation in any way. Some countries are much better than others e.g. Zimbabwe much worse than South Africa but South Africa can raise far more from safari tourism and would raise even more if hunting was banned. I would (and indeed am) paying for a trip to Kruger this Dec but I wouldn't pay one cent to do the same in Zimbabwe - indeed I wouldn't spend cent one there.
Numbers frequently lie if they are misrepresented.
Well if you think Zimbabwe's implementing this badly it must be seriously effective when implemented well!
“
“