- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Few people understand how big-game hunts work. That hunter probably paid well over $50,000 and possibly over $100,00 for the "hunt" and it was arranged because the herd was going to be thinned to avoid starvation. The money pays for the operation preserve, which usually is privately owned land. The alternative is to turn the land into farmland and eliminate the natural wildlife.
There are big game hunters - if can call it hunting - on waiting lists to "hunt" big game. When the number becomes too high for a particular species on the particular private preserve, and offer is made to buy the hunt of the specific animal. They tend to pick males because they consume a lot of food and space, but are not essential to maintaining the herd as that is the females.
Lower cost animals might be hippos, water buffalo and giraffes, though will still cost tens of thousands of dollars each for the right to shoot it. The goal of the hunter isn't the hunt, but the taxidermy afterwards for his home and as his vacation trip. End big game contract hunting and it would devastate certain species and the preserves would be shut down and converted to cleared farmland. The preserve owners also protect their land against poachers, which would not happen without the hunting fees income.
Even if not, the result would be starvation due to excessive population over grazing.
The elephant in all certainly has been killed as that likely was the goal in the first place.
You, too, can hunt tigers, lions, elephants etc - provided that you have a few hundred thousand dollars to spare. In doing so you are financing living space and protection for that species that otherwise wouldn't exist. The story doesn't tell that reality.
As soon as America converts its prairies back to natural prairies then you all have a right to fuss about what other countries do in relation to their large non-livestock animals. It tends to be city people who complain, when they personally are living themselves in a setting 100% adverse to animals. As it human nature, they want to complain about others for things they absolutely do not do themselves.
There are big game hunters - if can call it hunting - on waiting lists to "hunt" big game. When the number becomes too high for a particular species on the particular private preserve, and offer is made to buy the hunt of the specific animal. They tend to pick males because they consume a lot of food and space, but are not essential to maintaining the herd as that is the females.
Lower cost animals might be hippos, water buffalo and giraffes, though will still cost tens of thousands of dollars each for the right to shoot it. The goal of the hunter isn't the hunt, but the taxidermy afterwards for his home and as his vacation trip. End big game contract hunting and it would devastate certain species and the preserves would be shut down and converted to cleared farmland. The preserve owners also protect their land against poachers, which would not happen without the hunting fees income.
Even if not, the result would be starvation due to excessive population over grazing.
The elephant in all certainly has been killed as that likely was the goal in the first place.
You, too, can hunt tigers, lions, elephants etc - provided that you have a few hundred thousand dollars to spare. In doing so you are financing living space and protection for that species that otherwise wouldn't exist. The story doesn't tell that reality.
As soon as America converts its prairies back to natural prairies then you all have a right to fuss about what other countries do in relation to their large non-livestock animals. It tends to be city people who complain, when they personally are living themselves in a setting 100% adverse to animals. As it human nature, they want to complain about others for things they absolutely do not do themselves.