Wow, the ignorance spread by MSM.
Big game hunting and the free market does more to assure the survival of endangered species than governments.
The surprising reason that hunting big game could be good for conservation
Big game hunting may actually protect endangered species - Business Insider
Many hunters think other African countries should follow South Africa’s example and encourage well-organised, controlled culling of species, so giving them a value to those that live with them. They argue that a rhino, like anything else, will eventually die of old age, so why not allow an elderly beast to be shot and charge fees that can be used to fund effective anti-poaching measures?
Trophy Hunting May Be the Key to Saving Endangered Big Game
Trophy Hunting Key to Endangered Big Game Conservation
In a nutshell, here’s how it works (we’ll break down each of these components in a moment):
- The wildlife management and conservation programs that are vital to protect and otherwise benefit exotic big game animals (and by extension, the other animals in the ecosystems inhabited by big game) require money to operate.
- Funding for those wildlife management operations is, for many countries, an ongoing and, at times, losing struggle.
- Wildlife management program scientists and biologists have determined that a small number of specific animals in a population can and/or should be removed each year for the benefit of the health of the larger population.
- Trophy hunters are willing and able to step in and contribute to solving both issues by providing operating funds and removing problem or surplus animals.
ah you bought the lies hook line and sinker!
How Trophy hunters destroy conservation - Campaign Against Canned Hunting CACH
Blood lions sheds a harsh light on the canned hunting industry Blood Lions
Neither of my links had anything to do with private game reserves. But while we are on the subject, I think we are talking past each other. What you are thinking and talking about doesn't really matter. You are letting your feelings get in the way of honest, logical discussion. You are looking for harm, searching for it so badly, when actually, again, these game reserves are providing a benefit that far outweighs all the harm you are searching for. Genetic diversity and guaranteed survival for a species that would otherwise be threatened.
The first harm it insinuates is lion poaching. This is possible, but then again, it's unsubstantiated. Currently, the US and other western nations tend to have a problem with big cats. People get them as cubs, and then they get too big and have to be pawned off on zoos and circuses. More typically, poaching happens by poor folks. To claim that the poaching would end if this industry ended is ignorance to the extreme. In fact, I rather think if the folks that really were concerned about animal welfare understood economics, they would know, that the more lions you have, the LESS poaching will go on. If you eliminate this industry, THERE WILL BE MORE POACHING. Take that to the bank.
The second harm, it claims, it will lead to a "potential" harm? What is that shit? An unproven hypothetical? Yeah, putting lions in one congested spot might possibly draw aliens to the planet to collect them for an intergalactic zoo too. What the **** ever. There are populations all over the US that have feral populations of domestic house cats with the feline version of AIDS. What of it. Nature takes it's course. Scare tactics, nothing more.
The fourth harm this site claims is that the tourism dollar might be diminished? Boo hoo. This is still not outweighed by the Eco-system management that the biologists and scientists think is a good thing that the hunters do, and that is provided to the state by the hunter's dollars. Those dollars go to the state, not to private individuals, for any game that is taken on government property.
Next it wants us to be concerned that these hunting reserves are selling the left over lion bones to China? That's called profit at the margins and using the whole animal. Seriously? This is a bad thing? The Native Americans used the whole animal. And we are to believe that using every part of the lions are a bad thing? You need to start thinking and stop feeling. Really.
That last point is not even a point, it is just hyperbole, like that whole page,
How trophy hunters destroy conservation.
Now, let's discuss your other source.
Blood lions sheds a harsh light on the canned hunting industry Blood Lions
This source was a lot more logical and far less biased. It just presented the facts, but here again, we must still pause, and reflect, we are still just talking about, CANNED HUNTS. This is private individuals game reserves, not the government selling permits to hunt on federal land. There is a difference.
As far as the second source goes, lets not be disingenuous, it is mostly an appeal to emotion. It posits that hand raising and domesticating these beautiful and intelligent creatures and then letting them loose in a small area to slaughter them is morally and ethically repugnant. To that claim, as a vegetarian that abhors the industrial meat industry, I agree. However, I also am ethically consistent in my non-violence principles. I don't think the mobs and the masses should use the force of government to put a gun to anyone's head to tell them what they can and can't do. We should lobby our fellow man to raise the consciousness of humanity to boycott enterprises that we find repulsive so they go out of business. As soon as you try to use the force of the gun via the government, you are just as evil as those whom you see as what you believe as evil. In the end, only the maker judges, not governments.