- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,944
- Reaction score
- 69,025
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Well given it was spent in the Masai Mara and Tsavo East national parks on the TWICE I've visited then yes I do. And I didn't kill a thing doing it either
BS as my post #446 illustrated
Even if your propaganda site is true. Hunters continually service the park year after year dropping siginifcant money. 30,000 bucks, 3% is still almost a grand. Did you contribute a grand directly? That's one hunt, how many are there per year?
So what are you doing to help out? You went on vacation, great! But what else, other than a vacation, are you doing to help curtail these legal hunts? To contribute to the conservation of these animals? Anything
Your hypocrisy is breathtaking given having contributed nothing yourself you feel you are in a position to criticise others who have :roll:
There's no hypocrisy. I'm just pointing out that while you're sitting there being all mad bro at these hunters, that they're actually doing more for conservation than you are. You want to protect these animals, then go do it. Do something. It's easy to sit there and talk about your vacation you had and how the animals are great and oh how they should be protected. But you don't do anything to help protect them, and then you have the gall to wish for the DEATH of a human because she hunts.
Talk about morally bankrupt. Sloth is no way to accomplish a goal. Why don't you take a break from your keyboard warrior arguments and do something about the problem? Or is bitching about other people and wishing for their deaths about the only thing that you can manage to accomplish here?
Oh, and here:
http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/
It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors.
Last edited: