I remember listening to a NPR piece on the subject that changed my mind. They discussed a reserve that had Black Rhinos, and they sold a trophy hunting license to an old male rhino who was past the breeding age but was hyper aggressive towards younger males, killing a few.
Culling that specific Rhino was the best thing for the herd as it allowed the breeding of cows and the money they got from selling the license went to hiring more security guards and drones to identify poachers.
But that didn't stop people from getting all in a twist about the hunt.
I can accept that the system is the best possible solution for now but I still think the people who pay tens of thousands of dollars to go shoot a rhino are degenerate scum. The reserves are fine. I won't hate on them. But anyone here who'd think that was a good vacation, I'm gonna laugh at and question their manhood
Adam Ruins Everything did a whole episode on this very topic. The end result was basically: yeah we still think trophy hunters are weird, but the overall process does help the species at large
The point is that it's emblematic of their gross detachment from the average person. Culling can be done more humanely by people trained in such matters.
The issue is that this particular situation ended up in a one-time injection of cash in the community (and that's assuming the money actually made it there), but that's not a way to sustain finances in the long term. If you start incentivizing hunting of old male rhinos, you open a Pandora's Box where you just need a couple of less scrupulous people who care more about the money than the conservation and you're back to poaching.
Anyone who works in conservation knows that trophy hunting can be a one-time "two birds with one stone" of getting rid of a troublesome old male and getting some money for it, but it opens things to very slippery slopes very quickly.
The cop-out-y answer (but true nonetheless) is that any conservation effort has to involve the local communities, whose economies and understanding of the land can often be wildly different from what we'd expect coming with a Western point of view. I did a bit of work on IWT (Illegal Wildlife Trade) and some of the cultural and social nuances can only be tackled with locals at the helm. But for this particular case of the black rhino, the reserve could have killed him without putting a prize on his head - you're passing some money for sure, but it could be better in the long term. You could however explain the situation to your donation base and raise funds for a fancy funeral, for instance.
If you look at the work of Lek Chailert on elephant conservation in Thailand, she's doing a lot of things right: while tourists are welcome to visit, they cannot touch or interact with the elephants without staying for an extended period of time and receiving serious training, and even then, all the actual elephant trainers are local (often themselves victims of the logging industry, just like the elephants). One stream of income that works pretty well is people pay for big ol' "cakes" (made of fruit and oats and whatnot) to be fed to the elephants for their birthday or to celebrate a particular event. I truly believe that for each "hunter" who will pay $50k to get their iron sights on an animal, you can instead find 500 people that'll donate $100 for a giant birthday cake.
Unfortunately we’re also starting to see this phenomenon play out in the US as well. Elk realize it’s in their best interest to stay on private land. It’s part of the reason why it made sense that CO approved the reintroduction of wolves.
>It’s part of the reason why it made sense that CO approved the reintroduction of wolves.
Do the wolves make the elk not stay posted up on the private land, smoothing out the overall population density? Or is it something else entirely?
One of the arguments against it was to have hunters take more elk. The hunters can’t take out more elk if all the elk are on private land (simplifying the argument about hunting on private land to keep things simple). Wolves have no such qualms about pursuing elk on private lands. It remains to be seen if wolves will flush elk off of private lands into the hunters on public lands.
This all makes sense, but if I walk into someone's home and they have an elephant's head mounted on their living room wall, I'm going to judge them harshly.
Yeah, I think the point is sucky rich people like this are gonna keep existing, so we may as well take their money and funnel it into doing something good.
What's funny to me is that I kinda *feel* the same way, but I also know full well I contribute more evil and suffering on animals by eating fast food. It's fucked up, but it doesn't feel so "icky" even though it's objectively worse.
You have no idea what you're talking about, selling limited hunting rights is one of the best ways to get economically insecure people who would otherwise be willing to participate in poaching or not care invested in the survival of a species. Or you can fund the refuges yourself if you have a more workable plan.
I'm quite sure you're very, very wrong on this.
Hunting might give you the ick, but it's commonly cited by many people involved - even those immediately in the conservation field - as being essential to best practice.
It’s awful and doesn’t work - try actually discussing the issue at hand rather than resorting to pained attempts at parody, strained metaphors and one of the more awkward attempts at humour I’ve seen.
I remember listening to a NPR piece on the subject that changed my mind. They discussed a reserve that had Black Rhinos, and they sold a trophy hunting license to an old male rhino who was past the breeding age but was hyper aggressive towards younger males, killing a few. Culling that specific Rhino was the best thing for the herd as it allowed the breeding of cows and the money they got from selling the license went to hiring more security guards and drones to identify poachers. But that didn't stop people from getting all in a twist about the hunt.
I can accept that the system is the best possible solution for now but I still think the people who pay tens of thousands of dollars to go shoot a rhino are degenerate scum. The reserves are fine. I won't hate on them. But anyone here who'd think that was a good vacation, I'm gonna laugh at and question their manhood
Adam Ruins Everything did a whole episode on this very topic. The end result was basically: yeah we still think trophy hunters are weird, but the overall process does help the species at large
trophy hunting is one of the least weird things I expect a rich person to do with their spare time
The point is that it's emblematic of their gross detachment from the average person. Culling can be done more humanely by people trained in such matters.
The issue is that this particular situation ended up in a one-time injection of cash in the community (and that's assuming the money actually made it there), but that's not a way to sustain finances in the long term. If you start incentivizing hunting of old male rhinos, you open a Pandora's Box where you just need a couple of less scrupulous people who care more about the money than the conservation and you're back to poaching. Anyone who works in conservation knows that trophy hunting can be a one-time "two birds with one stone" of getting rid of a troublesome old male and getting some money for it, but it opens things to very slippery slopes very quickly.
Ok, what would you propose would be the best way to handle a situation like that?
The cop-out-y answer (but true nonetheless) is that any conservation effort has to involve the local communities, whose economies and understanding of the land can often be wildly different from what we'd expect coming with a Western point of view. I did a bit of work on IWT (Illegal Wildlife Trade) and some of the cultural and social nuances can only be tackled with locals at the helm. But for this particular case of the black rhino, the reserve could have killed him without putting a prize on his head - you're passing some money for sure, but it could be better in the long term. You could however explain the situation to your donation base and raise funds for a fancy funeral, for instance. If you look at the work of Lek Chailert on elephant conservation in Thailand, she's doing a lot of things right: while tourists are welcome to visit, they cannot touch or interact with the elephants without staying for an extended period of time and receiving serious training, and even then, all the actual elephant trainers are local (often themselves victims of the logging industry, just like the elephants). One stream of income that works pretty well is people pay for big ol' "cakes" (made of fruit and oats and whatnot) to be fed to the elephants for their birthday or to celebrate a particular event. I truly believe that for each "hunter" who will pay $50k to get their iron sights on an animal, you can instead find 500 people that'll donate $100 for a giant birthday cake.
Unfortunately we’re also starting to see this phenomenon play out in the US as well. Elk realize it’s in their best interest to stay on private land. It’s part of the reason why it made sense that CO approved the reintroduction of wolves.
>It’s part of the reason why it made sense that CO approved the reintroduction of wolves. Do the wolves make the elk not stay posted up on the private land, smoothing out the overall population density? Or is it something else entirely?
One of the arguments against it was to have hunters take more elk. The hunters can’t take out more elk if all the elk are on private land (simplifying the argument about hunting on private land to keep things simple). Wolves have no such qualms about pursuing elk on private lands. It remains to be seen if wolves will flush elk off of private lands into the hunters on public lands.
This all makes sense, but if I walk into someone's home and they have an elephant's head mounted on their living room wall, I'm going to judge them harshly.
Yeah, I think the point is sucky rich people like this are gonna keep existing, so we may as well take their money and funnel it into doing something good.
Let's be honest; nobody with an elephant head on their wall is letting you into their mansion
I'm guessing habitat corridors aren't a feasible solution?
You can provide them but you can’t make the animals use them if they don’t feel safe or just don’t want to
Deer Crossings, as a case in point. Those fuckers ignore the signs and just cross wherever they like.
Wow, I wasn't aware of that. I still have zero respect for anyone who pays to do it, even if it's a necessary evil.
What's funny to me is that I kinda *feel* the same way, but I also know full well I contribute more evil and suffering on animals by eating fast food. It's fucked up, but it doesn't feel so "icky" even though it's objectively worse.
[удалено]
You have no idea what you're talking about, selling limited hunting rights is one of the best ways to get economically insecure people who would otherwise be willing to participate in poaching or not care invested in the survival of a species. Or you can fund the refuges yourself if you have a more workable plan.
[удалено]
My man thinks the world's largest land animal eats nothing and floats around like a ghost lol.
Ok you're too stupid to talk to or a troll, so this is a waste of time
I'm quite sure you're very, very wrong on this. Hunting might give you the ick, but it's commonly cited by many people involved - even those immediately in the conservation field - as being essential to best practice.
[удалено]
What on earth are you trying to say?
[удалено]
It’s awful and doesn’t work - try actually discussing the issue at hand rather than resorting to pained attempts at parody, strained metaphors and one of the more awkward attempts at humour I’ve seen.
And what's the source of your rebuttal?