Nature did humans back in the US a favor
But he was hunting antelope, that’s not as bad though? I’m against that type of hunting regardless, but he wasn’t hunting elephants. Is the antelope population large?
The elephants know.
Them, and the orcas fucking up yachts off the Gibraltar strait lol
I’m assuming it’s slop because I’d like it to be true.
Although many disagree with big game hunting all Ernie’s hunts were strictly licensed and above board and were registered as conservation in culling animal numbers
Nothing here really indicates that the guy was a bad person, other than some vague categorizations like “he was rich” or “he was a hunter”.
I can’t say anything about his deeds or misdeeds as a rich guy. But I feel like there should be some context added about big game hunters - namely, that they are important to conservation efforts.
Sport hunters realized probably 100 years ago that unchecked hunting of their quarry would soon lead to the extinction of such species, and thus, the extinction of their sport. Hence, they were a big part of the early conservation efforts of the early 20th century, and typically continue to be big (and organized) advocates of conservation efforts today - supporting the protection of ecosystems and public lands.
Of course, this isn’t to say hunters, as individuals or as a group, are without their flaws. You would likely find more than a few climate skeptics in their ranks. But it seems to me that someone who goes out to interact with nature regularly would be a far more sympathetic ear to being swayed than their cousin Jim Bob who just sits on the couch all day watching Fox News.
In particular, there seems to be an idea that hunters are some sort of bloodthirsty killers. But most hunters will explain that they do a lot to limit animal suffering by lining up precise shots and using bullets or arrows designed to kill as quickly as possible. While most hunting done in developed nations these days is done for sport, the hunters do still eat the meat, and they are quick to point out that this is probably the most ethical way to get meat - from an animal who was able to live a good life in a natural habitat, and which then died instantly. Far better than the cow which lived its whole life in a tiny feed lot up to its knees in shit before it was turned into a hamburger. And if you ask them why they hunt, they will talk about spending time in nature, spending time with friends, and feeling like they are taking part in the circle of life in a way humans have been since we roamed the African savannah.
And on a practical level - almost every natural area in the world needs hunters in order to control animal populations. In most areas, apex predators have been brought to near extinction by a number of factors - mostly the destruction of large contiguous areas of habitat for the purposes of farming. The result is an explosion in the population of prey species, which will then have negative impacts on the environment as a whole by overpopulating and overfeeding. Thus there is a need to regularly cull herds. We could pay land managers to do this themselves, of course. But why do that when there is a population of sport hunters willing to pay to do the job for you?
Which brings us to big game hunting in Africa. Africa, you may have heard, is poor. While conditions are improving, Africa remains one of the biggest hotbeds of world poverty, and it is currently undergoing a massive population boom. And adjacent to these populations of desperately poor people, you have the last strongholds of some of the most incredible species on Earth. I have a friend who regularly travels to Africa to help with a small NGO he is affiliated with. As he tells it, the attitude of the average local is “I think they should kill all the lions. They eat people.” They think the land would be better used for more farms or more housing, and see poachers as just doing some honest work. African governments are similarly not very interested in protecting these natural habitats - the more democratic ones are typically mostly focused on getting people food, water, shelter, and healthcare on an extremely meager budget. And the more autocratic ones are concerned with pleasing the multinational corporations exploiting their land and quelling populist uprisings. Both the people and the governments must be given a reason to care about preserving their natural environments. An Economic reason. The cold, hard truth is that if you want to save the elephants, you must show the people who control the land that having elephants will make them more money than not having elephants.
Enter: big game hunters. The preserves, of course, get some funding from NGOs and normal ecotourism safaris. But more money is more better, and big game hunters come with money. African preserves face the same challenges as wildland areas in the rest of the world, as apex predator populations dwindle, prey populations increase to untenable levels. They must be culled somehow, so why not let someone pay you for the opportunity? Meanwhile, the apex predators and megafauna themselves will all die eventually. And what is the fate of an aging lion with an arthritic limp? To slowly starve to death, until he is too weak to fend off the hyenas that will tear the flesh from his bones while he is still alive? Auctioning off a hunting license for a dying lion will both shorten the animal’s suffering and result in a big payday for the preserve so they can pay to protect all the other lions from poachers.
The great irony being that whenever we see a news story about big game hunting, the comments inevitably cast the hunter as the villian - when instead, they are an active participant in preserving endangered species and limiting animal suffering. Is this exactly the world we would all like to see? No, not really. But solving problems of shrinking habitats and worldwide poverty will take a while, and protecting endangered species with big game hunters’ deep pockets is a pretty good solution right now.
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.
“We wiped out the apex predators so now we have to be the apex predators” is an…interesting take on justifying trophy hunting.
You could just fund conservation for animals like lions and hyenas in the savanna, and other predators in other environments. It’s better overall, see the effects of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone.
Colonial mindset is strong in this comment. Africans are poor (wonder why?), and kept poor by western elites. Kept in a condition where they have to prioritize eating before conservation. So the same elites who keep them poor, need to come in and give the people a “reason to care about preserving their natural environments”, not by helping the society, but by killing big game for money so they can pose with their trophies.
Also, big game hunters are not bloodthirsty killers, they pay millions to kill animals not for bragging rights, but to help conservation. Just ask Don Jr. They even do a lot to minimize the suffering of the animal, out of the goodness of their hearts apparently, and not because that’s a basic rule of hunting that you have to follow if you wanna keep hunting. Those dumb Africans need sensible hunters to teach them about conservation, don’t you know?
Incredible comment and covered a lot of my personal journey from “hunters are slack-jawed idiots” to “oh shit, hunters have been thinking about conservation for a while”.
If you take a minute to think about it, of course hunters would be interested in preservation. They want a place to hunt and things to hunt. There will always also be the douchebag manosphere style people that just want the biggest sport kill.
Fantastic comment, too bad not enough will read it. The bloodthirsty need their excuse to celebrate killing people they dislike
Just a reminder that these hunts are for the purpose of culling for conservation. This wasn’t some dude rolling with poachers.
So what you’re saying is elephant populations are out of control? Hard to fathom honestly. Now if you were talking about Deer in any state in the USA I’d say ok sure but elephants? No.
Elder elephants can be absolute bloodthirsty bastards. Ironically, zero kill conservation is a large part of the reason, because they now live longer on average. Culling aggressive elder males that aren’t reproducing but are being aggressive and murderous towards other males that can mate helps improve their population overall.
There’s a guy above with a much more in depth comment above mine that I’d highly recommend reading
He wasn’t hunting elephants. And they typically cull older males that aren’t reproducing but are strong enough to stop younger males.
Says he was hunting antelope
Lol, animals are starting the revolution because Americans won’t.
wait a minute, we were told to wait until Bosnia and Herzegovina started.
Lol, idiots talking out of their ass because they know nothing about anything
Most of the world is well informed, Americans not so much.
CITIZEN SNIPS!
Also, bulls started winning
So the bull says “Rectum? I nearly killed him!”
Is there video
I was not able to find a source I find reliable, but there are many sites that suggest elephants recognize individual humans and recognize guns as threats, and can even recognize a gun pointed at them is a threat. So if someone they don’t know has a gun, and we’ll never know if he aimed one at an elephant for funsies, they may have identified him as a threat and defended themselves by killing him.
The Daily Mail article says he’d killed elephants before, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯
First the whales, now elephants, keep up the good work guys
I would like to take every big game hunter, take away their weapon and put them in an arena with the last thing they shot. Nobody of these ballless losers would survive.
I mean, I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but usually the last thing they shot is dead by this point. I think they’d do ok.
Don’t try bringing logic to a dingleberry convention!
Satisfying, but sort of falls under animal cruelty.
How much prep time do they get? Or is it just hand to paw combat?
Hand to paw, no prep time. Just as nature intended.
The frogs were always gay and if they ever become straight that is a cry for help.
my fanfiction is that those specific frogs were straight. but seeing as much Alex Jones needed a win they pretended to be gay. Nothing wrong with kissing your homies, and it made Alex Jones happy.
Is it another one, or is it the same which have been reposted about for years now? It would be great if it is a movement in the works, all those shitstains really needs to die horrible deaths.
The Daily Mail article is dated today, so it looks like a new one.
