I mean, I never said it did. I said that money from trophy hunting promotes conservation.
The source you linked seems to have its own bias, in that it promotes Compassionate Conservation, which is more of an ideological argument than a conservation-minded one. I don’t have a problem with taking an ideological stance here, but I think it should be recognized as such. And it seems to me that this organization is telling some half truths in the service of its ideological goals.
For example, the headline of the article is that trophy hunting money is not reinvested in communities. But to me, this is moving the goalposts. If the goal is to preserve lions and elephants and their natural habitat, then it is great if we can do that while also investing in local communities. But if the money flows into the pocket of some local corrupt bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat then posts guards to protect the animals from poachers and doesn’t sell the land to local farmers, then the goal of protecting the lions and elephants has been achieved. This is why I specified that we must make economic appeals to the people who control the land - which is not necessarily the general public. It is also why I specified that we do not live in an ideal world. If the idea of funding a corrupt bureaucrat while the locals around the preserve remain impoverished turns your gut… well, yeah. The world is full of injustices. We can definitely say it would be better if these people benefitted economically - but we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Demanding that every single problem in the world be solved all at once while sitting on our couches in wealthy western nations is most likely not a great strategy for achieving any goal.
Later, the article states that an elephant is worth more over its lifetime for tourists to see and photograph than it is worth as a trophy hunt. Which would be compelling if preserves were issuing hunting licenses on random elephants. But as far as I have heard, they don’t do this. The impression I get is that most preserves have strong ties to foreign NGOs which provide both a lot of funding and a lot of oversight. And then of course the preserves themselves know that the elephants being in a lot of tourist dollars by being alive. So of course they aren’t going to issue licenses to hunt young, healthy elephants. As far as I am aware, the licenses for hunting species like elephats are issued to individuals to allow them to hunt a single, specific animal which is sick, injured, or otherwise dying. From an economic standpoint, the animal has already provided the full benefit it would provide to the park for safari/photography money, and now the best use of the elephant is for trophy hunting money. And, again, from a humanitarian view, the elephant is being saved from a slow, painful, and often gruesome death.
So if you want to make an ideological argument against hunting, go ahead and make it. But the arguments presented by your source seem disingenuous to me.
There’s one huge caveat to your almost valid points. The vast majority of trophy hunting money doesn’t go to the local population.
I mean, I never said it did. I said that money from trophy hunting promotes conservation.
The source you linked seems to have its own bias, in that it promotes Compassionate Conservation, which is more of an ideological argument than a conservation-minded one. I don’t have a problem with taking an ideological stance here, but I think it should be recognized as such. And it seems to me that this organization is telling some half truths in the service of its ideological goals.
For example, the headline of the article is that trophy hunting money is not reinvested in communities. But to me, this is moving the goalposts. If the goal is to preserve lions and elephants and their natural habitat, then it is great if we can do that while also investing in local communities. But if the money flows into the pocket of some local corrupt bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat then posts guards to protect the animals from poachers and doesn’t sell the land to local farmers, then the goal of protecting the lions and elephants has been achieved. This is why I specified that we must make economic appeals to the people who control the land - which is not necessarily the general public. It is also why I specified that we do not live in an ideal world. If the idea of funding a corrupt bureaucrat while the locals around the preserve remain impoverished turns your gut… well, yeah. The world is full of injustices. We can definitely say it would be better if these people benefitted economically - but we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Demanding that every single problem in the world be solved all at once while sitting on our couches in wealthy western nations is most likely not a great strategy for achieving any goal.
Later, the article states that an elephant is worth more over its lifetime for tourists to see and photograph than it is worth as a trophy hunt. Which would be compelling if preserves were issuing hunting licenses on random elephants. But as far as I have heard, they don’t do this. The impression I get is that most preserves have strong ties to foreign NGOs which provide both a lot of funding and a lot of oversight. And then of course the preserves themselves know that the elephants being in a lot of tourist dollars by being alive. So of course they aren’t going to issue licenses to hunt young, healthy elephants. As far as I am aware, the licenses for hunting species like elephats are issued to individuals to allow them to hunt a single, specific animal which is sick, injured, or otherwise dying. From an economic standpoint, the animal has already provided the full benefit it would provide to the park for safari/photography money, and now the best use of the elephant is for trophy hunting money. And, again, from a humanitarian view, the elephant is being saved from a slow, painful, and often gruesome death.
So if you want to make an ideological argument against hunting, go ahead and make it. But the arguments presented by your source seem disingenuous to me.
You know they could just donate money and not kill animals right? It’s psycho to have killing be your hobby