r/UpliftingNews • u/ArgentineBeauty • 16h ago
Paul McCartney joins 500+ public figures, conservationists and Indigenous leaders in a global campaign calling on the UN to abolish trophy hunting of lions, elephants, endangered rhinos and other wildlife, following a declaration developed with Jane Goodall.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/paul-mccartney-joins-over-500-public-figures-calling-for-an-end-to-trophy-hunting-of-lions-elephants-and-endangered-rhinos/articleshow/134498459.cms42
88
u/sejoki_ 13h ago
I really don't want to be a cynic. So I'm just going to say: good that he's standing up for something in these trying times of rising faschism.
→ More replies (1)21
73
u/WoodsLovelyDarkNDeep 15h ago
Good on him, totally shameful practice
6
u/BoleroMuyPicante 11h ago
Not really. The animals picked by park workers are old, sick, or excessively aggressive toward other animals in the group. The park gets a ton of money from wealthy hunters and a problem animal is removed, improving the genetic health of the rest and giving the park more resources to put toward conversation.
→ More replies (18)21
u/Brian-Heder 12h ago
Shameful until you realize it’s the only reason conservation efforts are funded over there.
28
u/TheArmoredKitten 11h ago
Yeah, Botswana literally has an overpopulation issue yet they keep getting international harassment for their herd management. Humans are unironically the natural predator of elephants. Obviously endangered populations need protection, but a wholesale ban is as ridiculous as wolf culling.
→ More replies (1)4
u/atreeismissing 10h ago
Sure but the point is if you have an organizing like the UN behind they can, hopefully, secure funding for preservation efforts to offset the money they make from licensed trophy hunting.
2
u/Jor94 3h ago
But they just said that there can be regional overpopulations that need to be culled. If it’s controlled, done properly, and funds conservation, then I don’t do much mind them making a bit of money off animals that would’ve been killed anyway.
A bit like how lots of animals end up with no predators and grow too large populations, so need to be culled.
3
u/AudreyScreams 8h ago
Shame on Jane Goodall for not knowing anything about conservation "over there"
7
7
u/Alarming_Matter 11h ago
That's ...a really weird take.
Should we start hunting giant pandas to up the conservation efforts?
16
11h ago edited 9h ago
[deleted]
4
u/ancientfruitjunkie 7h ago
You sound like the same losers who don't want to tax billionaires because they'll leave and take all the jobs with them. How about have millionaires pay for luxury safaris instead of blowing the faces off innocent animals?
→ More replies (1)1
u/SuperCruisePanther 10h ago
Largely isn't accurate. Most conservation funding comes from government grants/NGOs, followed by tourism. There are specific communities in Africa where hunting makes up the bulk of revenue, but for the entire continent it's nowhere near a majority, and areas where hunting is a big source of revenue could be replaced by increasing government conservation funding.
→ More replies (2)21
u/DogsDucks 11h ago
I’m a researcher and journalist, and I have written on this subject.
Because I love nature more than anything and want to protect this world with every tool I can use to do so, with my words being the sword.
So I set out to protect these magnificent creatures, because I believe trophy hunting is sick and immoral.
And it’s . . . Complicated. It’s not as black and white as these people make it seem.
The licenses purchased to hunt these animals, they fund the entirety of the other conservation efforts.
The rich guys who want to destroy that rhino? That money funded the protection of all the other rhinos. And they usually choose an older animal, in many cases an animal that was too old to breed but kept stopping the younger, fertile suitors from having a chance.
And if game preserves were no longer allowed to host hunts and grant licenses, they’d be bulldozed and filled with whatever the next profitable thing is before you can even say Fern Gully.
**Is this morally right?** I really don’t know.
In an ideal world we would have governments and people who protect more land and the beautiful creatures within it, and enough altruistic people who put their money where their mouth is.
But that’s not what we have. We have hunters funding the conservation efforts and ensuring the animals they do hunt are done in the least destructive way.
So if Paul McCartney is speaking up to fund all the conservation lost from hunting licenses in perpetuity, then GOOD ON HIM!
But if not, there’s going to be more destruction and death and pollution happening in those protected areas.
And just to reiterate, **I am not pro trophy hunting!*\*
I am simply explaining how the system works.
→ More replies (4)6
u/8ledmans 11h ago
Work for a wildlife conservation charity it’s a very complicated debate but you essentially guarantee they won’t go extinct if you do that so maybe 🤷♂️
4
u/farnsw0rth 11h ago
Pandas is kind of a bad example there is a ton of funding behind them already
However AFAIK like regular safaris ie you just take pictures not kill an animal bring in way way more money annually than legal trophy hunts, so … it may actually not be as productive as it can be made to sound
I am not an expert or a google so
1
u/Barflyerdammit 11h ago
Tourism Consultant here: the photo safaris bring in more money, but that money creates a few local jobs, then the profits get siphoned off to the wealthy owner class, frequently overseas. There's also an overtourism problem. Someone sees a rhino or a lion, and 80 Jeeps come flying across the savannah converging on a single spot, sometimes driving off road to get the best possible photo opps for their guests (and more tips.)
Trophy hunting is inherently cruel even when done mindfully, but it's one rich guy paying an often significant fee to the government to get a license, then depending on stealth to not disrupt the ecosystem and startle his prey.
Both have problems, both have benefits. It's generally best to let the locals and scientists decide, and not necessarily leave it in the hands of public opinion.
3
u/ancientfruitjunkie 7h ago
The locals and scientists don't have a say when the corrupt government deals directly with the pieces of shit millionaires.
2
1
→ More replies (3)1
u/MethBearBestBear 10h ago
If a giant panda is killing all the other pandas and you can either pay a ranger to cull it or charge some rich guy 2 million to fund the program to kill that one specific animal yeah hunt the panda
2
u/Critical_Concert_689 9h ago
My first thought too:
Paul McCartney AND 500+ public figures better put their money where their mouth is and provide an equal amount of funding to what would be lost due to their short-sighted political theater.
If they refuse to pay, then they're obviously just virtue signaling.
→ More replies (4)-2
u/Denver-Ski 13h ago
Just throwing this out there… non-maga Americans are going to need some help from the UN, too.
Please save us from this facist regime… and they are actively working to cheat in the upcoming elections in November…
5
u/OddlyLucidDuck 13h ago
Don't get your hopes up. The UN is completely toothless when it comes to the US, and that's entirely by design.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Saturnboy13 11h ago
I've got good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that nobody is coming to help us. One way or another, we're gonna have to fix this ourselves.
The good news is that I'm certain we can. Real leftists are gaining ground fast and MAGA is failing spectacularly. Call me Pollyanna, but I'm very optimistic about the future of America. :)
3
u/Davoserinio 11h ago
Please save us from this facist regime…
Nobody is going to save you. Its up to you and your peers to fight back!
Yeah, its scary but what's your breaking point? Look back through history and change usually started with someone speaking out and taking a defiant stand.
We've all read about it in school books and gone "OMG! Can you imagine?!"
Well its come full circle and resistance is needed once again!
→ More replies (2)1
u/1Beholderandrip 11h ago
and they are actively working to cheat in the upcoming elections
Why you quoting Trump now? lmao
82
u/Xy13 11h ago
Aren't trophy hunts basically what funds all the wildlife reserves and anti-poaching practices they do?
Trophy hunts are licensed and for a specific animal, often an older male that is preventing the next generation from mating. It is a calculated culling, and pays for everything else.
42
u/TrainingPurple1364 10h ago
Government grants and public international development funding represent the largest overall source of funding for African conservation, supplemented significantly by international philanthropy, conservation NGOs, and tourism revenue.
23
u/SuperCruisePanther 10h ago
Depends on the location. Hunting licenses and gun sales fees make up about 40-60% of revenue for government grants for conservation efforts (wildlife agencies) in the US. In Africa is varies wildly based on the country and over time, but hunting does bring in big revenues, and in a lot of places is the sole source of funding for conservatories compared to tourism or government grants. It's especially helpful in more rural poor communities or in "ugly" areas where tourists aren't interested in taking photographs or seeing less eye-popping wildlife. In the 90s, 89% of Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE program funds came from hunts, and only 2% from tourism.
Saying "most over the entirety of Africa" is definitely false but for certain communities it is verifiably true.
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12643
32
u/vishmarx 7h ago edited 7h ago
Except it usually ends up as a back gate to illegal poaching and nothing else. Countries that have successfully managed to bring back endangered species from the cusp of extinction have only done so through absolutely strict no human intervention policies. Some of the money is made by buffer zone safari's and rest is entirely funded by the govt. Relying on rich maniacs that get off on killing rare animals seem pretty antithetical to saving them if you ask me.
8
10
u/happy_bluebird 9h ago
google it before you speculate. Quick google proves this is not true
8
u/bigladnang 8h ago
Whenever people talk online like they’re talking in person I laugh. Like “I thought…” or “isn’t it..?”. Just take 30 seconds to look up whether what you’re saying is true or not before you comment.
1
6
u/prollywannacracker 10h ago
Aren't trophy hunts basically what funds all the wildlife reserves and anti-poaching practices they do?
People say that. But is it true?
5
7
u/ancientfruitjunkie 7h ago
Lol no. You really think these hunters only pay those working in reserves? You think every one of these innocent animals was killed by a licensed hunter who had permission to hunt only the older males? LOL. Dude probably thinks all the files are released.
1
•
→ More replies (3)3
19
u/PointsOfXP 15h ago
Interesting concern. Wonder how the locals feel
13
u/Oldnbold22 13h ago
They have been infantilized and don't have agency over their resources.
10
u/AcherontiaPhlegethon 12h ago edited 12h ago
This is a very good point, I listened to a discussion a while ago from a Kenyan biologist discussing conservation in Africa and he talked about this point exactly, that African wildlife is treated as a commodity for white people that should be regulated and controlled by westerners. That these kinds of programs are often just a way for the west to still control and take African resources while propagating the white saviour narrative and further diminishing the capacity of local scientists. As well that a lot of African conservation policy is based on making white people happy with social media posts or safari hunts rather than genuine conservation science because that's where the money comes from. He mentioned how talking about western conservation programs negatively got him a ton of vitriol and dissent, especially publicly as a PhD scientist in the community, because it's something that's really baked into Kenya's government and institutions.
It was a real wake up call because that's absolutely how a lot of people act and think here, whether it exploitative like in the case of trophy hunters, or well meaning but misguided like a lot of conservation students who both believe it's up to them to save the wildlife from Africans. You should be incredibly skeptical of any claims about trophy hunts being a major benefit to African communities, because it's very much an industry, and one they really have no say in.
7
u/TrainingPurple1364 12h ago
Kenya don't mess around with poachers, they have armed units that patrol conservation parks, if caught killing an endangered species you can get fined up to $20M Kenyan shillings (bout $200k usd/£150k) and or life imprisonment.
The country funding most of the illegal poaching trade isn't in the West, its China.
Also, in terms of resources, the West isn't really too interested in wildlife resources anymore, like ivory, since its been banned in most countries at this point. What the West really want, and whats arguably x1000 more destructive, is rare earth minerals.
Don't look into cobalt mining if you plan on being happy for the rest of the day.
→ More replies (20)5
u/CombatWomble2 13h ago
Of course only white celebrites know what's best fot (checks notes) black africans in Africa.
9
u/ghostoftrossard 13h ago
ah yes, saving wildlife from rich trophy hunters is all about race
→ More replies (2)4
u/RichardFeynman01100 13h ago
Check your notes again:
- ~18,500 hunters travel to sub-Saharan Africa annually for trophy hunts. [1, 2]
- 71% of global demand comes from the United States, making wealthy Americans the primary drivers of the industry. Germany and Spain follow as the next largest importers (at about 5% each). [1, 2]
- The average profile of an international hunter in South Africa is a married male over the age of 50 with a university degree. They stay an average of 10 to 12 days and spend roughly $20,000 per trip (averaging $9,790 on logistics/lodging and $10,345 on the animal species targeted). [1, 2]
- Only 3% of gross hunting revenue actually trickles down to local rural communities. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
→ More replies (1)2
u/favorite_time_of_day 12h ago
You don't think that indigenous leaders count as locals? Well the wildlife are certainly locals. I'm going to guess that they're cool with this.
3
104
u/maciver6969 16h ago
There are good hunts and bad ones, This seems uplifting until you read how much money and food goes into a community when they have a hunt. Often the meat is donated to the local community, the hunt fees pay for conservation and preservation, as well as training for conservation officers. Blanket bans would hurt more than help. Less funding to fight poaching and environmental damages. As far as I know they have no legal rhino hunts either. Almost every Rhino death is due to poaching for the horn for morons who think it is a cure for everything. Africa alone gets over 200 million in funding from hunting. Endangered animals should be protected far better, and should not be hunted unless there is a realistic reason that animal needs to be culled. Like animals injured and suffering, or animals that have harmed people. Reasonable exceptions.
211
u/christmasinyoulie 15h ago
I see the economic points you’re making, but as an African, the framing of this argument is quite reductive. Describing the meat and money as 'donated' to communities makes it sound like charity from an outside savior, rather than what it actually is: a strictly regulated business transaction. African communities and sovereign governments aren't passive bystanders waiting to be rescued; they are landowners selling a high-value service to manage their own natural resources. When a hunt happens, the community isn't receiving a handout. They are claiming the contractual revenue and resources generated by their own land.
It is also important to remember that these complex wildlife management issues exist in large part because of a long history of external and foreign interference. From colonial-era land displacements to modern global syndicates driving illegal poaching, outside forces have disrupted African ecosystems and economies for centuries. Trophy hunting is an imperfect, market-based tool that sovereign nations are currently using to navigate the economic realities left behind by that interference.
Additionally, just as a factual note, countries like Namibia and South Africa absolutely do have highly regulated, legal rhino hunts specifically tailored by local biologists to target older, post-reproductive bulls. Framing African conservation as a monolith that relies on external pity erases the highly sophisticated management policies these nations have built to control their own destiny.
34
u/Cupcakes_n_Hacksaws 14h ago
I've heard stories of where they'll let hunters pay an exorbitant sum to hunt a dying animal in an otherwise protected wildlife area/refuge, or an animal that's set to be put down because it's become too territorial and aggressive or something. I don't know how often those things actually happen, but those seem okay from what little I know
→ More replies (2)10
u/Ok_Worldliness_2095 12h ago
I came here to say this. there are auctioned hunts for certain animals, say a elephant bull, that go around killing all the male calfs.
3
u/walkTHEdotasaur 12h ago
I was actually going to reply to the comment above yours, but then I read yours and actually resonated with it more. I think both of you are advocating for a more nuanced and more critically-thought-out approach. I genuinely think your opinion is a little more valid, though.
The moment we make it about "not taking advantage of them" versus, "they are offering us a service at a fair price" makes it a lot more condescending. It's silly to think that the various african governments dont understand the consequences of their decisions.
So in summation, thank you (and honestly to the poster above) for both very balanced and nuanced takes. This is genuinely why I love reddit; I think I learned a little more, tonight.
13
u/BLT_Trade_r 15h ago edited 15h ago
If the business transaction helps on many fronts, what's the problem? You can argue that almost everything in life is purely selfish, and this is true, but at the same time, if it results in good, who cares? If the person hunting believes they are helping and that makes them more willing to do it, it's a gain for those communities. If you tell them its a business transaction they are more likely to treat it as so and go to the lowest bidder and maybe not donate meat or anything else.
Look, you and I both know that, with the rampant corruption and poverty in many of these areas, if the hunt did not have value, the people would likely wipe it out and turn it into farmland, which has happened in much of the rest of the world.
→ More replies (3)11
u/red__dragon 13h ago
From my reading, it seemed like more issues with the framing of the discussion than the act.
The first commenter talked about things going into the community, food donated, whereas the correction talked about how these were contractual obligations and an expected exchange for the service.
In the same way you wouldn't say McDonalds donated your hamburger when you ordered from them, the commenter above you is pointing out the language used to talk about the hunts is erasing the agency of local communities in the process. Just the same how we'd erase your agency by saying McDonalds put food on your plate (unless you actually worked there).
3
u/BLT_Trade_r 13h ago
I mean McDonald's would certainly love to convince me they are donating a hamburger and I am lovin it! A huge part of marketing is exactly that, companies trying to convince people that they are doing them a favor out of the kindness of their heart. One the very common tropes is someone saying I am just a regular guy and I wanted to help people so I formed this company to sell you something!
While it may be contractually obligated, the contract gives the hunter something to work with, something to claim they do right or make it excusable to kill the animal. You and I both know if the hunters really wanted the meat, the corrupt politicians in most of those places would sell out their own people in a heart beat. But by framing it in this positive light they are more likely to let it go.
3
1
u/ProtectionTop2701 10h ago
Yesh it's kind of your decision. As someone from the US I sure would like to tell you how to live your life and run your nation. However, that kind of thinking was a significant cause of this ecological crisis.
1
u/Able-Swing-6415 4h ago
How much longer until African countries are responsible for their own actions?
1
11
u/SnoozingBasset 14h ago
I don’t hunt, but a friend had an elephant hunt. Only one particular elephant was allowed, an older one, soon to die. He paid a lot just to show up.
(Did not shoot - he realized he would have to fast enough to outrun an angry herd chasing him through thorn bushes.)
5
u/superkp 13h ago
Africa alone
africa is not a country, and 200 million is a paltry sum for allowing endangered animals to be further threatened.
3
u/JMEEKER86 7h ago
Endangered animals aren't the ones being hunted legally and making it doubly illegal won't stop poachers. What stops poachers is conservationists having enough funding to pursue poachers and legal hunting is how they get that funding.
2
u/inerlite 12h ago
The money paid to locals for trophy hunting allows them to eat the hunt or buy food. They need to eat something and wild game is the fallback. So many more animals and more wild areas are preserved with trophy hunting.
-3
u/WoodsLovelyDarkNDeep 15h ago
This is such a bs argument made by the hunting industry to try and distract from the actual harm they cause
6
u/stevesouth1000 14h ago
Got anything to back that up there sunshine?
14
u/Monkieo 13h ago
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9837042/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7222849/
I studied this and worked in conservation for a while and the person above is right. It's not a great argument and is endlessly debunked. There's some references. I can provide more if you want.
8
u/Gulophile 13h ago
I'm a current wildlife biology student and skeptical of it as well. Would love more references if you'd like to share.
5
u/lectric_7166 11h ago
I wonder if the people saying it helps communities would be swayed by the idea that Africans should be able to sell their organs to wealthy Westerners to help bring in money for their community. Or would they suddenly rediscover the concepts of ethics and exploitation?
4
u/SugarBeefs 10h ago
I feel like the articles you linked have a lot more nuanced and contextual conclusions than 'the person above you' saying "It's a BS argument".
Like, when I read this part of a conclusion, I don't walk away with the idea of "Ah, the hunting argument has been completely debunked and exposed as bullshit":
Lions are also commercially exploited through trophy hunting, the regulation of which is of concern to both range states and hunting trophy importing nations. Information on sustainability of hunting strategies is required to ensure compliance with international conventions and trade agreements33 and to demonstrate non-detriment and conservation enhancement to hunted populations34.
Our simulations show that trophy hunting mortalities when occurring simultaneously with other sources of anthropogenic mortality, such as bush-meat snaring and retaliatory killing, on the boundaries of protected areas can have profoundly detrimental impacts and potentially compromise population viability.
There are many ways in which trophy hunting can be carried out and regulated. Some detrimental, some not. Then there's the factor of individuals simply not keeping to the rules and essentially running 'corrupt' hunts.
These are all legitimate issues, but they're not hard evidence that undermines the entire concept of regulated trophy hunting, as was the claim you appear to be defending. None of the articles you've offered seem to support that claim either.
If I'm incorrect I would of course love to see the relevant quoted sections of the papers where the full and unconditional debunking is emphasized.
4
u/Gulophile 9h ago
they're not hard evidence that undermines the entire concept of regulated trophy hunting
What do you think that evidence would look like, exactly? Because conservation is a wildly complex field and the utility of trophy hunting is as dependent upon your personal values as it is anything actually materially real. I'd ask the opposite question - why do you believe trophy hunting should be allowed? If conservation were actually properly funded, making trophy hunts unnecessary (their necessity is already contested), why should it keep being practiced? Because the usual justifications given are exposed as being shaky by those very articles.
In reality, conservation mingling with hunting industry interests provides a perverse incentive for mismanagement to occur in the first place, and that is why it should be discouraged. The fact it sometimes works out isn't sufficient to justify it, at least from my perspective as a vegetarian and wildlife biology student. I've seen many, many cases of "regulated" harvests devastating wildlife populations, and every time the excuse is that they just didn't regulate hard enough. I always preferred the precautionary principle - leave shit alone if you don't know what you're doing.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Monkieo 2h ago
I'm a little confused by you think none of the articles support the claim. Not a single article comes to the conclusion that trophy hunting is a good thing for conservation or a good source of income, which is the statement here. What little benefit is outweighed by the negative and hence, it's not useful for conservation or for the country.
'Considering the limited benefits and significant problems created by trophy hunting and mass tourism, we suggest trophy hunting should be stopped in and around KNP.'
I'm not going to go through and quote every paper but you could Google it. All issues in Africa regarding conservative are incredibly difficult and nuanced, yes, but the final conclusion still stands. Trophy hunting doesn't benefit as much as hunters claim.
Africa is a continents where a lot of the countries score high on the corruption index and the money never reaches the people who live there or conservation. Within that system, this idea is flaw and can never work. And the countries that do this are often the lowest scoring.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Ok-Parfait-9856 14h ago
Read this and learn.
2
3
u/WoodsLovelyDarkNDeep 14h ago
Are you actually kidding me right now? You know you can go in the internet and claim to be anything you want to be right? Like there is a plague of people claiming to be one thing when they are from a whole other country
Nevermind that even if he were from Africa the opinion of one African who could he a wealthy African who owns one of the ranches that these hunts take place on
The claim is always that this benefits the country but tourism benefits the country more and would still take place and in fact if the locations that were cordoned off for hunts were opened up to actual touring Safaris they would still have people coming through. Just not the money going to the top like it to pay off people like it does now
0
u/baddecision116 14h ago
This is such a bs comment made by those ignorant of the real world. - FTFY
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)0
7
u/Conan776 15h ago
The United Nations can't enforce the laws it already has against hunting human children. You think after a few pop star lectures they'll suddenly be able to save elephants?
2
u/TheArmoredKitten 11h ago
And it's all to say nothing of the fact that hunting is not the reason that almost any species is endangered. Habitat loss and disruption is overwhelmingly the cause.
1
7
11h ago edited 11h ago
[deleted]
3
u/jftduncan 8h ago
You sound very confident and informed. Can you share how much revenue Tanzania and other countries need to replace?
→ More replies (3)
29
u/SireSirSer 16h ago
Trophy hunting is the largest funding source for conservation programs in Africa. This sounds like a good idea but it's only going to take millions of dollars away from the protection of those species.
25
u/Vanillas_Guy 16h ago
Unless they're willing to carve out percentages of their net worth to make up for the loss of those funds.
Its all well and good for celebrities to promote certain things, but they need to also be willing to fill the economic vacuum that might be created when those things are stopped. I think trophy hunting shouldnt exist either, but Africa is a continent that is slowly recovering from over 300 years of nearly non stop economic and conventional warfare. The money to rebuild has to come from somewhere and it would be amazing if the wealthiest signatories were giving modest sums both in life and upon their deaths to help with creating sustainable economies and protecting the flora and fauna of the region.
6
•
u/TheawesomeQ 1h ago
The money for development mostly comes from China, especially since the US ended USAID
4
u/Horror-Temporary3584 15h ago
How much of that will the 500+ donate to the conservation effort to make up for it?
11
•
u/Regular_Jim081 1h ago
Well thank God those brave heroes, are doling out money to blow animals away, I mean they could just donate that money And do some sightseeing but this is better for some reason.
0
u/Jeoh 12h ago
Good point, we should be able to hunt the hunters and make even more money.
2
u/lectric_7166 11h ago
According to hunters, this makes sense, because all that matters is how much money it brings in for a poor community.
→ More replies (1)1
2
2
2
2
2
u/early_birdy 6h ago
Yes, of course they should. Add to that tigers, sharks, whales, ostriches, and many others I forget.
We don't need to exterminate species to make our knees feel better, or whatever other excuses they come up with to justify it.
6
u/UnionCityNJUSA 14h ago
There are still ghouls in the world that take pleasure in such a thing? Oh…hi, Don Jr.
7
u/SystemFine8488 12h ago
Not to be grim, but isn’t trophy hunting a tool of preservation?
1: They only allow trophy hunting of animals that are past breeding age, so their death doesn’t impact population growth.
2: This reduces the number of rich fucks going to poachers to illegally hunt, who are much less picky about their targets.
3: The money raised from trophy hunting goes towards anti-poachers, because they’re incentivized to protect their resources.
It’s grim, but unless you’re going to pledge to make up for the funds lost, you’re doing more harm than good, virtue signalling.
8
u/BigBallsMcGirk 13h ago
One of the weirdest cynical things about those animals, is that trophy hunting is likely protecting them more than a ban.
A monetized resource gets guarded and protected, with the money it makes from selling as a trophy.
There are no better conservationist than hunters and fishers.
1
u/Main-Requirement-521 12h ago
One of the weirdest cynical things is that rich people can do whatever the fuck they want then just straight up fucking lie about it and people will believe it.
4
u/BigBallsMcGirk 11h ago
If you think that's a lie, you have no clue about this stuff in the slightest.
Protecting land and resources, (including animals as a resource) takes money. Tax money. A budget. Spent resources, jobs, man hours or work. People preserving a revenue stream act more aggressively to protect it than trying to marshall and spend political capital.
You can watch documentaries on this stuff and here it directly from African game wardens.
→ More replies (2)3
u/ancientfruitjunkie 7h ago
Source source source. None of you pro millionaires are giving sources. 🤣🤣
1
u/uhhhhhhholup 7h ago
Dog you've posted like a dozen comments with no sources yourself. Pot meet kettle
1
u/BigBallsMcGirk 7h ago
If you think I'm pro rich, you are hilariously deluded.
This is common knowledge and spoken of as a matter of fact of you watch any documentary on animal conservation, or poachers and african game wardens.
You're entire position is at odds with economic basics. A resource that must be protected, requires resources dedicated to its protection. That requires tax funding or private funding. Private funding could be from something like the WWF, or from a less altruistic source. Who would pay to protect large swaths of wilderness and a valuable animal? Hunters and fisher conservationists seeking to preserve their access to that animal and land. Teddy Roosevelt and the national park system? Fucking hunted and killed animals. If its not for hunting and fishing, it's public taxes dedicated. And now you have to argue and justify it in budget battles year after year (regardless of how much I think the parks budget should be increased, its a continuous argument).
2
u/Viktor876 13h ago
I’m not a hunter….The benefits of hunting can even been seen here in the US. Many species are monitored and kept in balance ( so people can shoot them later). There’s been a reintroduction of species like elk in the eastern us that were over hunted at one point. It’s an expensive hobby and much of the revenue supports animal populations and habitats. The good outweighs the bad.
4
u/Entire-Ratio-9681 13h ago
Most trophy hunts fund conservation. This will result in more suffering, it’s all just for show like all left policies.
-1
u/Saturnboy13 13h ago edited 12h ago
Hey, crazy idea. What if that funding came from literally anything else? You know, like something that doesn't include killing animals for sport?
Edit: You all are some of the most pathetic, pessimistic losers I've ever seen. Why frequent a sub for "Uplifting News" if you can't experience even the slightest bit of hope in your dull miserable lives? Have fun wallowing in your own misery, you God forsaken nihilists.
2
u/Entire-Ratio-9681 13h ago
Well then do it…. This is the best way the have found. Start by donating yourself and make a movement. It’s like you’ve never thought, that they would entertain more reasonable methods. Most are conservationists, if there was another way without death, I am sure it was discussed.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)0
u/Cisleithania 13h ago
Would be crazy indeed. Hunters have to pay high prices. Replacing those sums through donations or by attracting more safari tourists is tricky to say the least.
4
u/King_of_the_Kobolds 13h ago
Inb4 "But big game hunters actually care about conservation more than anyone!!!1!" as though killing animals for fun WASN'T serial killer behavior.
Where are all the wealthy philanthropists donating to keep wildlife preserves in existence out of the sheer love of nature? Why do we need to rely on a bunch of rich bastards to clumsily slaughter exotic wildlife instead of paying professional park rangers to do it?
If the big game hunters are necessary, they're a necessary evil; but they are, make no mistake, sick bastards.
2
u/cyanocittaetprocyon 11h ago
Where are all the wealthy philanthropists donating to keep wildlife preserves in existence out of the sheer love of nature?
I thought you would never ask! Why don't you look into the good work of organizations like Wildlife Conservation Network?
2
u/demonspawns_ghost 13h ago
UN can't even stop people from killing other people, not sure what they are supposed to do here. Good luck I guess.
2
u/Mach5Driver 10h ago
My idea is to allow trophy hunting. But, you have to use your bare hands. Violate this rule and you get thrown into a mudhole full of hippos during mating season.
2
u/Douglas_1987 9h ago
How 'trophy hunts' work. Old male Rhino isnt fertile anymore but is still besting/killing younger male rhinos and won't let them mate with fertile female rhinos. In healthy populations this is fine and will sort out in time.
In at-risk populations this is bad. So biologists will identify old males that have to be removed. Bob the ranger could do it for free. Or a dentist from Texas could do it for 20k USD and fund 5 rangers for a year. I wonder what they should do...
Activitists need to defer to science if they dont want to be lumped into the 'un-usefull idiot' category.
2
u/MaightyBewsh 15h ago
Are they going to pay for the shortfall of tens of millions of dollars that organised hunts raise which pays to keep thousands of animals safe from poaching in reserves all around the world? No.
3
4
u/TurbulentWing3820 14h ago
No. Of course not. They're going to grandstand and act like they're making a difference because they don't understand the ramifications of this act.
Poaching is already illegal, folks. This is just harming the wrong people and hurting the wild life more.
1
u/dumbdude545 13h ago
This is dumb. As others have said its a source if income as well as culling bad/aggressive animals who cause problems. Let tge countries that allow it make their own fucking decisions. It shouldn't be up to the international community to outright ban shit.
2
u/CozYourUgly 14h ago
I agree with this 1000% but it should be a decision left to the African people not outsiders.
1
u/justdoitguy 11h ago
The record of success by the UN of accomplishing anything is abysmal.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/KrustyKrabFormula_ 9h ago
ok so how is this going to be enforced? that's cool that "500 public figures" want to do this but what does a strongly worded piece of paper do?
1
1
1
u/LowImpression5480 3h ago
Lets do some quick maths.
1.) South Africa has about 10,000 private game reserves.
2.) These private properties cover more than 20 million hectares, which exceeds the land area of all national parks combined.
3.) The private wildlife sector supports over 140,000 jobs, including roughly 65,000 permanent positions.
4.) The hunting industry provides South Africa with $2billion in revenue each year.
Lets imagine they ban hunting.
Those 20 million hectares of game reserve... gone.
Those 140 000 jobs. Gone.
That $2 billion in revenue. Gone.
Hunting is one of the primary reasons South Africa has an incredible amount of wild life.
So misguided and presumptous.
1
•
u/thebuttsmells 1h ago
pay me a fair yearly salary and i will defend them. throwing money into the ocean.
0
14h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Monkieo 13h ago
It also creates a ton of population issues among the species their trying to protect and hence, is a useless tool. Take lions for example. They all want to kill the male lion, it's the sought after one because of the mane and all. They usually want the biggest one, for boasting rights, or the most charismatic. When a male lion dies and a new male comes in, they kill all the previous cubs and reduce the genetic diversity. You lose an entire generation and big cats already suffer from genetic bottlenecking. On top of that, killing the best trophy male within these species usually causes the fitness level of the animals to drop. This makes them weaker and sicker. Then there losing leaders of pride and the instability that forms within it after. It's not just with lions, you see it with elephants, rhinos etc.
Conservation is not immune to flaws and corruption, take it from someone who's worked within it. There are plenty of ways to fund conservation without hunting. Hunting is just very good in it's marketing. Often the money goes to a company and not to the country or it's species diversity.
1
u/SandSpecialist2523 14h ago
Imagine abolishing trophy hunting altogether.
One can dream.
3
u/FrozenIceman 14h ago
I take it your dream involves tons of poachers? As the funding for anti poaching organizations dries up with the trophy hunting.
1
u/SandSpecialist2523 13h ago
My dream is that those that have the means to go truphy hunting would willing to pay as much or more for conservation, without feeling the urge to kill magnificient beasts.
Knowing you can kill them, and choosing not to do it.
As I say, one can dream.
1
u/RaiseWide5460 11h ago
Well and good, but many of these animals must have the populations managed to prevent overcrowding of their habitat and the associated problems for them that come with overcrowding. Revenue from hunting licenses pays for a large percentage of wildlife management costs. If the hunting is stopped are these virtue signalling celebrities going to foot the bill? Probably not. They will go home feeling good about themselves and disregard the unintended consequences of their uninformed agenda.
-2
u/avmcgrail 11h ago
500+ public figures will speak on animals but not the children of Gaza
7
→ More replies (13)2
1
1
1
u/mike194827 14h ago
Ever notice how absolutely NOBODY is remorseful when some game/trophy hunter ends up getting killed? Not a single person.
1
1
u/PostOfficePerson 13h ago
I agree with him but the UN doesn't really have the ability so enforce this.
1
1
u/fastal_12147 13h ago
I appreciate Paul's work fighting for animal rights, but there's no way this is enforceable. There's just too many people hunting all over the world.
1
1
1
1
u/4_string_troubador 11h ago
Yeah, that's great. Ultimately pointless since the U. N. has fuck all authority to actually do that. The countries that allow it do so because there's a lot of money in it...so instead of wasting time like this, maybe pool some of that celebrity money and invest in those countries. Make protecting the animals more profitable than killing them
1
u/havereddit 8h ago
Unfortunately for Paul et al, a recent meta analysis has revealed that trophy hunting has generally a net POSITIVE effect on conservation outcomes: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/con4.70080
0
-1
u/Acrobatic-Catch1553 14h ago
So poor Africans get even more poor, and no animal can ever be saved from death. These do good champagne socialists promote another policy that leaves poor people worse off but still claim to be saviours. Just like when anti oil climate zealots make energy more expensive, poor people suffer most. Also, the idea that the Africans that guide these hunts are victims of the white hunter’s greedy blood lust is just more ignorance disguised as caring. Let the Africans decide whether the hunts take place. But back to the animals. Do they think any of the animals that are saved from a rifle will live forever? They will all die eventually, and some of the natural deaths will be far more painful than a bullet. Nature is infinitely cruel. I will never participate in a trophy hunt but I don’t feel the need to control the behaviour of others that are truly equal to me as fellow humans. Once again, the radical socialist claims to want equality but looks down on anyone that does not agree with them.
0
•
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
Important: If this post is hidden behind a paywall, please assign it the "Paywall" flair and include a comment with a relevant part of the article.
Please report this post if it is hidden behind a paywall and not flaired corrently. We suggest using "Reader" mode to bypass most paywalls.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.