And 'hunting' big game with modern high-powered rifles and scopes is barely more than a level-1 vidgame. Seriously, you're virtually guaranteed to bag something, and the biggest risk is a sprained ankle with your guide as backup.
The best solution is to sell expensive packages to hunt the most dangerous game of all -humans- specifically, poachers.
Your big fee gets you deputized, mostly goes to protect the park, and you go on a real hunt of something that has a fighting chance, and you'll genuinely improve the animals' chance of survival if you succeed.
Man is an omnivore; omnivores eat other animals; killing other animals is therefore necessary to embrace our true selves.
> To say you are helping conserve nature while actively destroying it is nothing short of hypocrisy and deceptive wording.
As a man, I am part of nature.
I don't enjoy killing, but I very much enjoy hunting, cleaning & cooking my food. I never feel more alive that when I'm in the field, earning my meal with my own eyes and hands.
Because humans have miniature canines does not mean they have to imitate carnivores with full-size canines. Humans can be omnivores, or herbivores, or carnivores, all by reason and choice. Our dental structure and shape lends far greater evidence to a plant-based diet (molars with which to grind down leaves) than to meat eating.
I'm not trying to say that being an herbivore is for everyone, but killing does have consequences, some seen and some unseen, and at the very least one should warn a brother.
Some people want the species to survive, some people want to hunt them, both parties meet in the middle. It's certainly better than the fate of the Dodo and the Great Auk.
Eventually compromising on how many lions can be hunted to save the lions just leads to no more lions.
Of course, I understand that this article is mostly informational, it is stuff that is going on, and probably would not even come into community attention without a write-up. I'm thankful for the intel, but I cannot agree with the conclusion
Just because from your view point killing an animal is murder, does not mean everyone agrees. No one is ethically or morally bothered, because, one animal killing another is a foundational part of our ecosystem.
And there it is, someone jumping in commenting about how you're not supposed to ride on the elephant's back. I guess one can always take the moral highway when they are in an AC cooled room with 1Gbps internet arguing about what other people should do.
At the same time though, our """ecosystem""" wasn't designed in billions of years to take our guns into the equation. Human has the ability to conquer pretty much every (big) animal there is on earth. Give me an AK-47, some generous supply of bullets, and let me hunt whatever whenever I want, I'd sure be able to clean out a very significant part of a jungle. It would not have happened if I had to wrestle with the bears for their meat.
The argument based on the premise that it is natural to do so. There is nothing natural about dominating another living with a gun that you can shoot at a ridiculous range. It doesn't matter how much money you bring to it, maybe that bear is destined to die of old age if it wasn't for the human shooting him down.
We don't know for sure what's the impact of hunting an old bear or a rhino down (I'm aware that there are some arguments about it being a good thing), but sure that wasn't what nature did for billions of years.
Does the good triumph over the bad aspect when you pay for a kill? Maybe, possibly. Is it ethical? Debatable. Is it part of nature? No.
Hey, do they get a chance to ask the American one to not destroy the Earth, or only the American one can lecture them to not hunt some food?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumpt...