Much like the American clothing company Patagonia's recent stand against hydropower dams, I am frustrated by rich European governments taking a stand against big game hunting. Yes, dams kill fish...
Exemplary
Much like the American clothing company Patagonia's recent stand against hydropower dams, I am frustrated by rich European governments taking a stand against big game hunting. Yes, dams kill fish and change the environment, and yes, hunting kills animals, but in both cases there are no obvious alternatives and the benefits seem to outweigh the drawbacks. (In several African countries more than 80% of the power comes from hydro. What would you prefer? Burning even more coal?)
I am not a hunter. But I live in a country that is visited by big game hunters, and every trophy is essentially a direct transfer of cash from a wealthy country to a poorer country. Game tags cost thousands - sometimes tens of thousands - of US dollars, which goes straight to the government and the park. Then there are the flights, the car rentals, the local guides, the safari lodge, the food... All of this boosts the local economy, which is generally speaking sorely needed.
There are some downsides. If poorly managed, the benefits of allowing game hunting can entice governments to issue too many tags, depleting herds. If we're talking about elephants specifically, they have very long memories, so if they have learned to fear vehicles and people, it makes non-hunting tourism more difficult, because you can't get as close to the animals. There are also some ethical questions regarding whether it is ever right to kill an animal.
But on the other hand, there are massive benefits. Yes, governments might be enticed to allow too much hunting, but they then have massive incentives (and enough cash) to stop poaching (bigger, healthier herds = more opportunities to get money from hunters). Poachers, obviously, have no limits on how much they will kill and are often far, far crueller to the animals than the big game hunters who are looking to kill with a single bullet. And regarding the impacts to non-hunting tourism, poaching is much, much more damaging than big-game hunting is.
At the end of the day, I see it like this: humans are going to kill animals, whether it be through poaching or through hunting. You can either regulate it, control it, and turn it to good, or you can try to ban it and know that it will happen behind the scenes without your consent. And regarding the ethical questions over whether it is ever right to kill an animal... animals are typically still alive for the first minutes/hours that they are being eaten by predators. I find it hard to argue that hunting is crueller than nature.
What a even-tempered and well-considered post! I'm focused on these sorts of wildlife issues (and human-wildlife conflict in specific) in just this area of the world! So let's talk facts! You...
Exemplary
What a even-tempered and well-considered post! I'm focused on these sorts of wildlife issues (and human-wildlife conflict in specific) in just this area of the world! So let's talk facts!
You might be interested to know that big game hunters were a huge boon to tourism of southern Africa, particularly South Africa, up through the 1980s. They helped to pave the way for a whole variety of different kinds of travel, safari drives, and other types of tourism entertainment and at increasingly affordable prices. That, plus the acceptance of international air travel and the boom in camera ownership in the mid-1970s, made photo-safari tourism a truly viable option for so many people.
Tourism makes up a good chunk of GDP for many African countries, though usually not as big as people expect. Pre-pandemic, South Africa had about 15 million tourists and the tourism sector accounted for about 2.8% of GDP in 2018. But even a small chunk of that GDP is important, and if trophy hunting is a big part of that, then we should be able to see it make a difference.
In a 2015 report commissioned by Safari Club International, it was claimed that in 2012 the tens of thousands of trophy hunters visiting eight countries in southern Africa spent as much as $426 million. As you said in your comment, that money is spread across a few different sectors serving tourists (airlines, restaurants, etc.). I've talked with hunters in almost every one of those countries because I spend a fair amount of time out there. I would imagine that at least half of that money goes to the property/company selling the hunts. $426 million sounds like a lot! But compare that to the $17 billion spent by tourists that same year across those countries. It's about 2.5%. So how could it be true that trophy hunting is that economically important?
SCI's report claimed that South Africa, the most popular trophy hunting destination, had 8,387 hunting tourists in one year. Those hunters spent at least $141 million. South Africa's GDP has been somewhere in the range of $323 billion and $458 billion each year for the last 15 years. So no matter what year you pick, $141 million, or even twice or three times that, isn't a significant part of GDP. But let's back up a minute. 8,397 trophy hunters? South Africa had around 9 million tourists that year. Are all the hunting tourists super-rich? No, unfortunately for their narrative they're not, and some of them a budget big game hunters. And that's from SCI's own report! SCI's figures for Botswana suggest trophy hunters spent $7.2 million, which is a single-digit percent of tourist spending and an even smaller fraction of Botswana's $13.9 billion GDP that year.
And all along we've been taking a pro-hunting company, that actively lobbies in the US and internationally, at face value. Their own numbers don't even show that trophy hunters are making a materially important impact. If they've inflated their own numbers, and they likely have, then that suggests the economic importance of trophy hunting is further over-stated.
There's an interesting report that serves to disprove SCI's claims. But there are several reports that do and I know a few Africans who used to work at hunting concessions who will also tell you the same thing. Trophy hunting isn't as profitable as they claim, nor are local communities helped much, if at all, by the revenue. This report also explains how some of the land used for trophy hunting could generate revenue if it were put to other use -- so if trophy hunting stopped entirely, like it did in Kenya, people in surrounding communities wouldn't suddenly become poor.
Unfortunately, people in communities surrounding private game reserves (PGRs) already are poor. Why is that of PGRs are bringing in all this revenue? Part of it is because of the massive amount of corruption that fails to direct tax revenue towards the programs it's earmarked for. Part of it is because there isn't enough money being generated by PGRs to serve the population. And part of it is because many private game reserves are set up like LLCs in the US and have some creative ways of marginalizing their actual profits and using tax loopholes.
It's pretty clear that trophy hunting has been contributing less and less as a percentage to tourism revenue over time, and GDP in general, maybe with the exception of the pandemic when tourism was dramatically reduced. It's also pretty clear to anyone who has been out there that communities aren't benefiting from the presence of many of the PGRs around them, including some of the biggest photo-safari destinations, because there is an extreme imbalance in sharing the proceeds, in tax revenue even being distributed properly, and a crippling practice of disenfranchising the poor as much as possible. Thula Thula has come under a lot of scrutiny for this and if they can, then so can hunting reserves.
So I want to caution people that while it's easy to continue to repeat things that sound convenient and have a history of being said, and might have even almost been true 40 years ago, that doesn't always make it true today. There are lots of common myths that people believe and we give it little credence, but really it's repeating those myths and perpetuating them that is continuing to build the foundation for the harm that's actually being done. And that's because it's often self-serving and suits the personal philosophy of the person saying it. There's already been at least one commenter in this thread busy confirming their own biases by agreeing with a complete myth that only serves the interest of a few people -- people they might identify with on the surface, but actually have little real commonality with that -- big game trophy hunting in a very loosely regulated part of the world, for instance.
I'm literally on the way to a wildlife conference where people with experience combating human-wildlife conflict and poaching -- people who are actually involved in successful programs to reverse the damage done by the racist policies that helped to shape the map of land ownership in southern Africa. If you'd like me to ask them some questions on your behalf, shoot me a message and I'll see what I can do. I'm actively focused on wildlife conservation, have traveled all over southern Africa, and I'm sure I can help bring the facts into focus for you and others who have questions. And I'm sure the people I know who are involved in anti-poaching and counter-trafficking operations would be happy to help dispel this myth that not only puts the brakes on their momentum, but also steamrolls over their positive success stories and helps to feed the mechanism of bribery and corruption that is such a problem in these countries.
By the way, if you've never seen what a trophy hunt could look like, and I'm totally cherry-picking here, I encourage you to watch one of these videos. Have you ever seen canned hunting? Or seen a hunt conducted entirely from the back of a moving vehicle? It's illegal, but it happens. What about a lion that's darted multiple times to make it easier for a hunter to shoot? If it sounds unpalatable, consider what poverty is like for the people in the communities who often aren't getting a cent of the trophy hunting proceeds because of tax loopholes. And because people keep repeating things that make them feel good and take the eye off of real solutions. Really makes the whole situation worth it, doesn't it? Want to talk real solutions? They exist and you're not talking about them. Let's do that when I get back instead of talking about myths.
This: Makes this: Seem very sarcastic, in retrospect. Your post spent a lot of time arguing that trophy hunting isn't as economically beneficial as a pro-hunting lobby has claimed. Not that it's...
This:
Really makes the whole situation worth it, doesn't it? Want to talk real solutions? They exist and you're not talking about them. Let's do that when I get back instead of talking about myths.
Makes this:
What a even-tempered and well-considered post!
Seem very sarcastic, in retrospect.
Your post spent a lot of time arguing that trophy hunting isn't as economically beneficial as a pro-hunting lobby has claimed. Not that it's not beneficial, but that it's not as beneficial as some might think. Which is a fair point, but hardly a condemnation of trophy hunting. You didn't touch at all on the assertion that hunting helps conserve land for wildlife instead of, for example, being slashed and burned for palm oil plantations.
As I said in the beginning, I am not a hunter. I think shooting an elephant is horrible. But when you conclude your post, quite literally, with "your solution is wrong and there are real solutions, but you're not talking about them... anyway, no time to detail those solutions now," I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with that. Your tone really rubbed me the wrong way.
I would say it's a fairly strong condemnation of trophy hunting. Reading your post, I was under the impression that trophy hunting was single-handedly raising a significant fraction of people out...
Not that it's not beneficial, but that it's not as beneficial as some might think. Which is a fair point, but hardly a condemnation of trophy hunting.
I would say it's a fairly strong condemnation of trophy hunting. Reading your post, I was under the impression that trophy hunting was single-handedly raising a significant fraction of people out of poverty, but now I see that the number is almost negligible.
Trophy hunting must be considered on-balance. Your post glossed-over the most important counterargument against trophy hunting: that killing large game for sport -- especially elephants, which live for decades and practice death rituals -- is wrong. Personally I am not particularly fond of arguments in which people attempt to offset a moral harm to an individual of a group by a monetary contribution to the entire group. I mean, imagine if the US attempted to solve homelessness by granting licenses to hunt homeless people. Sure, maybe you could use those proceeds to lift some people out of poverty, but that would still be morally reprehensible!
I would be willing to accept trophy hunting if there were almost literally no alternative. But having read @ChingShih's post, I'm not convinced there's really even a problem that needs to be addressed.
Fair enough. Bad word choice on my part. I understand and respect this viewpoint. I glossed over it because I don't believe that anybody will change their mind on an ethical stance because of a...
I would say it's a fairly strong condemnation of trophy hunting.
Fair enough. Bad word choice on my part.
your post glossed-over the most important counterargument against trophy hunting: that killing large game for sport -- especially elephants, which live for decades and practice death rituals -- is wrong.
I understand and respect this viewpoint. I glossed over it because I don't believe that anybody will change their mind on an ethical stance because of a post on the internet, so it is more worthwhile to talk about some of the other factors.
Reading your post, I was under the impression that trophy hunting was single-handedly raising a significant fraction of people out of poverty, but now I see that the number is almost negligible.
With respect to chingshih, I don't think it's correct to call hundreds of millions of dollars a year negligible in Africa. They cited a report to disprove the economic effects of hunting. The cited report was commissioned by an anti-hunting lobby, which is normal and appropriate, but I am mentioning it because chingshih made a lot of hay out of the figures from a report commissioned by a hunting lobby, suggesting that those figures were overstated. That is certainly true, but we should keep in mind that the figures from the negative report are then likely understated. In any case, the negative report suggested that the marginal effects of hunting probably only resulted in an additional 7,000-15,000 jobs. Let's split the difference and call it 10,000. The bottom line is this - 10,000 jobs in rural Africa is not negligible.
I would love to see this. Aside from that recent documentary on an elephant preserve in India for orphans, I have no idea what options are available. That also didn't go into where the money came...
Want to talk real solutions? They exist and you're not talking about them. Let's do that when I get back instead of talking about myths.
I would love to see this. Aside from that recent documentary on an elephant preserve in India for orphans, I have no idea what options are available. That also didn't go into where the money came from to run the preserve.
I'll have more time to address this tomorrow, but I realize it might actually be more informative if I just direct you to a couple organizations that have pretty well-constructed reports on their...
Exemplary
I'll have more time to address this tomorrow, but I realize it might actually be more informative if I just direct you to a couple organizations that have pretty well-constructed reports on their activities specific to elephant-human conflict mitigation. I can't speak to individual preserves, and certainly some of them, like zoos, aren't run well, but if you find out the name of the documentary I will take a look and reply accordingly.
This is wordy, but clicking through the major links will prove to have more engaging content than what I can produce. :)
Wildlife SOS is a NGO in India that runs not one, but 12 rescue and long-term centers for everything from snakes and small mammals to bears, leopards, and elephants. When people ask about NGOs doing great work that aren't a bunch of westerners going overseas and telling local people how to do things, I point to Wildlife SOS. They've been nailing this since their founding in 1995 and their impact is enormous. Specific to human-wildlife conflict, they have several programs that all target different challenges communities face when living near wildlife, including: rescuing leopards from communal wells and building animal-proof alternatives; supporting policy to build better visibility and safety corridors for trains passing through dense forests (the habitat of elephants and tigers); educating local communities and holding law enforcement seminars about the false basis of folk medicines relying on bear parts; I think they also do the same with respect to tiger and leopard parts; and a program and 5 rescue hotlines (getting literally over 1 million calls a year) to provide resources to people who unexpectedly have an animal visitor. No matter the size or number of legs, they send professionals out to cities and rural communities to catch-and-release or to bring the animal to a rehab center for a checkup.
The most high-tech Wildlife SOS program is probably their method of sharing elephant alerts with local communities based on information from tracking collars. Many NGOs have been using GPS or radio-based tracking collars for years or decades and they're placed on select elephants during health checkups and other veterinarian-supervised activities. Wildlife SOS and a number of African NGOs I'm aware of including Elephant-Human Relations Aid and Big Life Foundation, now use this data as an early warning system so that communities can be more careful when driving down a specific road (everyone has seen those videos of elephants suddenly appearing from densely forested areas to stop trucks and steal their bananas) or to give the community time to deploy commercial or home-grown chili pepper. The early warning system is phenomenal and the data-sharing is also instilling more trust between the communities and the neighboring NGOs. The beehives have proven quite effective in preventing bulls and herds from raiding crops and discouraging them from an easy meal that infringes on the livelihoods of rural farmers. I've visited a couple communities in Namibia where people grew the peppers in their personal gardens. They found it really funny. As someone who really loves elephants, I don't think it's very nice, but at least it's non-lethal. As a quick tangent, beehives have been shown to ward off elephants while also providing farmers with a lucrative source of income. I don't know if Wildlife SOS is also trying beehives due to that probably attracting bears, but Save the Elephants seems to have sponsored a project in India in the past.
Big Life Foundation, a Canadian NGO operating across ~1.6 million acres of East Africa, has been incredibly successful and I wish more of their success stories made the mainstream news. They have a number of programs that have been helping the Maasai people and neighboring groups to better coexist with changing wildlife and land usage patterns (including in recent history the Kenyan government blocking them from grazing cattle on public lands that in some cases may have historically been tribal lands).
Big Life has a predator compensation fund that's not only protecting lions, leopards, and other carnivores from retaliation killings, but they are also helping to educate communities about predators and frankly helps communities to keep some of the livestock farmers honest. There's a short video and some blog posts that go into more detail. Big Life isn't the only NGO out there with compensation programs. Snow Leopard Trust, operating in Central Asia, also has one. Several NGOs have picked up this idea because it's cheaper to pay for some of these individual incidents and also instill some communal responsibility, than it is to spend money arresting people involved in revenge killings (whether they kill the correct animal or not). All of these NGOs have very readable annual reports that, yes, have a lot of feel-good stuff inside them (and fluffy leopards), but also report on some of the major and minor successes of these programs and why it's meaningful to the local community.
Big Life is kinda notable in that they have what I would say is themost impressive and sophisticated elephant conflict mitigation programs (complete with rangers and veterinarians deployed by helicopters) to provide non-violent solutions when elephants enter tribal land or communal space as well as provide medical aid to animals injured by humans, whether that be by poison, spear, or firearm. You can read more about their results in their quarterly and annual reports. Pick one, they're pretty nice and graphical.
These aren't the only NGOs doing some great work on providing non-lethal alternatives. Various groups are working on both practical solutions that are working in other regions, as well as policy. They're constructing wildlife corridors, working with states/provinces to better plan roads, improving national park habitats to retain animals rather than allow them to disperse into human settlements (and even cities), educating people in rural communities who have no formal education or oral history of coexisting with megafauna, and much more. I'll try to get to that next time!
The documentary I was referring to is, The Elephant Whisperers. Thank you for all the info! It'll take me a bit to go through all the links, but I really appreciate it.
As somebody who occasionally hunts, I agree that legal and regulated hunting is more ethical than buying factory farmed meat and can be done humanely. That said, I think I’d draw a pretty firm...
As somebody who occasionally hunts, I agree that legal and regulated hunting is more ethical than buying factory farmed meat and can be done humanely.
That said, I think I’d draw a pretty firm ethical distinction between “big game hunting”, which more commonly refers to hunting deer, elk, etc., and hunting endangered species like elephants. I take particular issue with “trophy hunting” generally and the method these sort of trips employ, where the animal is essentially corralled for the client who doesn’t do much more than pull a trigger.
Potentially, if relocation isn’t an option (or in the event that the elephant is known to be dangerous, obviously). I will always object to shooting a penned, tied up, or similarly constrained...
Potentially, if relocation isn’t an option (or in the event that the elephant is known to be dangerous, obviously). I will always object to shooting a penned, tied up, or similarly constrained animal and calling it “sporting” or “hunting” rather than what it really is, which is slaughtering. Slaughtering an animal can be okay if done humanely and for good reason, but it’s still reprehensible if it’s being done solely for a trophy and the rest of the animal is being wasted.
We've got about 40 african elephants in zoos across the country. Let's say as an olive branch to Botswana we double that capacity.... I don't think we're making a dent in their excess population.
We've got about 40 african elephants in zoos across the country. Let's say as an olive branch to Botswana we double that capacity.... I don't think we're making a dent in their excess population.
You don't enjoy the sport of driving a Land Rover up to a sleeping lion that has become so comfortable around humans that he just keeps snoozing and then putting a cap in his heart so you can hang...
You don't enjoy the sport of driving a Land Rover up to a sleeping lion that has become so comfortable around humans that he just keeps snoozing and then putting a cap in his heart so you can hang his head on your wall?
Yes I agree these people are assholes, but I don't think it changes any of my arguments. The money still mostly goes to conservation and the local community, no matter how much work the hunter (or...
I take particular issue with “trophy hunting” generally and the method these sort of trips employ, where the animal is essentially corralled for the client who doesn’t do much more than pull a trigger.
Yes I agree these people are assholes, but I don't think it changes any of my arguments. The money still mostly goes to conservation and the local community, no matter how much work the hunter (or "hunter") put in (or didn't).
I realize this might seem like a strawman on the big game hunting thing, as that is what the article is about; and I don't want to derail the conversation, just talk about that one point in...
Exemplary
Much like the American clothing company Patagonia's recent stand against hydropower dams...
I realize this might seem like a strawman on the big game hunting thing, as that is what the article is about; and I don't want to derail the conversation, just talk about that one point in general because I know a little about it. If anyone knows more, and I'm sure someone here does, feel free to negate or expand on anything here :).
I'm not well enough informed to talk about big game hunting, but I do know a bit about the dam removal efforts and can weigh in on why they are being opposed. I will also admit my partner used to work for Patagonia in the Netherlands and travelled to Bosnia to support the group of local women there fighting for the dam to be removed. All of those potential conflicts of interest and shortcomings in the open....
Most of the anti-dam sentiment is actually based on economics, particularly the cost benefit of benefits from the dam (power generation, water storage, flood mitigation) compared against the costs (cost of initial construction, cost of maintenance, loss of resources such a fisheries). Historically it's been a pretty easy benefits in costs out, but those models miss a good number of additional costs and potential harms. Here in California the initial calculations for dams, such as the recently removed Klamath dam, calculated benefits that waaaay outstripped their true numbers. When you have drought years the run rates of rivers drop and don't produce the same amount of energy and with climate change we've seen reduced rates across the American West. As it turns out much of the initial water use and flow rate analysis was done during a period of heightened rain fall.
So that problem is over estimating benefits. The other side of the coin is accounting for costs. Initial costing often overlooked or undervalued the cost of dam removal, a very expensive process. Tack onto that unforeseen impacts such as the proliferation of toxic algae blooms with lower flow rates and increasing temperatures, and in many cases the initial calculous does add up to a net gain. And that is without calculating in all the economic benefits of the ecosystem services healthy wetlands provide.
So while there is a large faction of folks who just want to "return the world to the way it was", the actual governmental efforts and the changes that are taking place are looking at the total gain or losses a dam project or current dam provide and make decisions based on that analysis. I'm not suggesting giving carte blanch to remove all the dams globally, but I think we should be looking at how our infrastructure is actually benefitting both local and national communities. A lot of these projects were put in when we didn't have the capabilities we have now to truly understand the impacts and externalities of a dam and I think it is time to reassess which we want to keep, which we want to scrap, and if there are potential success point for new ones.
In broad strokes, I agree with all of your points. After humans eliminate the (other) natural predators, they inherit the responsibility of managing the prey herds themselves, whether they like it...
In broad strokes, I agree with all of your points.
After humans eliminate the (other) natural predators, they inherit the responsibility of managing the prey herds themselves, whether they like it or not.
Consider it the hunting version of the "if you feed a stray" rule.
I grew up as a deer hunter in Wisconsin, where I spent many years paying close attention to how the state (the Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources) managed the deer herd there.
When a governmental agency is trying to manage a prey animal based on how much revenue they can bring in ... it always goes badly. The money skews the policies. In Wisconsin, over many decades, the list of things that went badly, managing the deer herd there, is long and sordid.
However, not managing it at all would have been 10x worse, and generally speaking, most people in the WI DNR were absolutely doing their best to balance a delicate and complex ecosystem.
Having too many elephants is a good problem; not one I ever expected to see in my lifetime.
Learning how to manage that herd will have to be a trial-and-error thing; hopefully, they try to take lessons from others before them, like the WI DNR and--I'm sure--100s (1000s?) of other such programs around the world. But it's their herd, and their responsibility to manage it, and Germany trying to control how they do it, smells suspiciously like the next chapter of Colonialism.
That's kinda true. Lions, hyenas and humans all hunted them occasionally, and probably some mega-predators back before the last Ice Age ended, but officially, no, they have no natural predators. I...
That's kinda true.
Lions, hyenas and humans all hunted them occasionally, and probably some mega-predators back before the last Ice Age ended, but officially, no, they have no natural predators.
I don't know that much about elephants ... but if they are over-populating the region, then something is out of whack, and I would be shocked if it wasn't, somehow, our fault.
Not necessarily out of whack. They’re overpopulating because they’re competing for space with humans. They’re not necessarily over the carrying capacity of the land, they’re just eating people’s...
Not necessarily out of whack. They’re overpopulating because they’re competing for space with humans. They’re not necessarily over the carrying capacity of the land, they’re just eating people’s crops.
I guess African elephants aren’t like the Asian ones where they can be trained as draft animals, so it’s probably harder to live alongside them.
I genuinely understand why you might feel that way and I would probably agree with all of your objections. Trophy hunting is a morally reprehensible act. I know some people envision rich white...
I genuinely understand why you might feel that way and I would probably agree with all of your objections. Trophy hunting is a morally reprehensible act. I know some people envision rich white guys needlesy flying half way around the world, just to shoot a defenceless and endangered animal with a big gun from a safe distance, after the locals did all the hard work, just to live out some colonial alpha-male fantasy. Harkens back to the good old days when it was the Europeans God given right to civilize the savage world.
In a perfect world, needlessly ending life can not be tolerated. But I can't overstate how imperfect the world is, particularly in a third world country. If you see it in media or even tour, it may seem relatable and even progressive. But go a few kilometers off the highways and you might as well be on another planet. And even these people have bills to pay.
So think about it from a local perspective. The beneficiaries of colonialism, are imposing laws that does not meaningfully benefit themselves but directly impacts the lives and livelyhoods of the already impoverished. At the same rural communities need to clean up the mess of some well meaning conservationists. If we didn't know better, it'd almost feel like a spiteful position.
The saddest part is that regardless of what happens with the ban, these elephants will likely still be killed. And it has nothing to do with poaching douchbags looking for "the thrill of the hunt". Over the last two decades I've seen more and more of the African countryside carved up by farmland. Local produce and grain companies pay a fairly generous sum to villages and substance farmers to grow their crops. These fields inevitably expand into wild habitats. Elephant incidents have been on the rise for a while now. Destroyed fields, attacks, car accidents, violent bulls. A buddy of mine is a ranger in Zambia and there are real efforts to relocate, but at a certain point a call needs to be made. And if there's a dumb foreigner throwing around more cash than a years with of food, you're insane not to take it. Do it enough and maybe you could afford college for a few kids or generator or water pump.
Please don't think I'm saying you're wrong for morally objecting. It probably makes you a better person than me. But it's a really messy situation that goes well beyond just animal rights. This report about the risks of a ban was floating around when this issue was in the UK news. While it's admittedly biased, it does highlight the many other factors involved.
I’m not sure why they bothered to comment since it’s just noise, but it seems they meant that they are so upset that can’t be civil or respectful. It’s also heavily implied that they think the...
Exemplary
I’m not sure why they bothered to comment since it’s just noise, but it seems they meant that they are so upset that can’t be civil or respectful. It’s also heavily implied that they think the person they’re replying to is [insert morally negative sentiment of choice here], but without actually having to live with the consequences of saying that (because it would violate site rules).
I think it still contributes something and it makes it clear that people who despise what @R3qn65 said exist. It specifically cuts off further discussion, but I think it's similar to, say, the...
I think it still contributes something and it makes it clear that people who despise what @R3qn65 said exist. It specifically cuts off further discussion, but I think it's similar to, say, the socialist party having a candidate for president. Just acknowledging their existence gets people talking about it.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree on that point. Saying, in effect, “I don’t like this and think you’re a bad person” doesn’t really add anything substantive to a discussion. Particularly when...
I guess we’ll just have to disagree on that point. Saying, in effect, “I don’t like this and think you’re a bad person” doesn’t really add anything substantive to a discussion. Particularly when done in a passive-aggressive manner to evade any minor ramifications that might result from actually voicing an opinion.
If instead they had said “I don’t want to get into a debate, but I disagree on X,Y,Z moral grounds”, that would have had the same net message, but it would have actually meaningfully contributed to the conversation.
I am not sure I agree with this. I really don't see it adding much to just say "I despise what you said" - especially if you don't even say why. If the point is "you're an asshole for being so...
I am not sure I agree with this. I really don't see it adding much to just say "I despise what you said" - especially if you don't even say why.
If the point is "you're an asshole for being so jaded towards the shooting of animals," then fair enough, but you've got to at least say that.
The title sounds like a joke but the grievances from Botswana stem from something real and tangible. It's still a somewhat childish response to a possible curtailing of the hunting industry, but...
The title sounds like a joke but the grievances from Botswana stem from something real and tangible. It's still a somewhat childish response to a possible curtailing of the hunting industry, but at least I get where they come from.
Perhaps the money could be spent elsewhere promoting other industries that do not rely on the finicky business of hunting big animals for sport.
Earlier this year, Germany's environment ministry suggested there should be stricter limits on importing trophies from hunting animals.
Botswana's President Mokgweetsi Masisi told German media this would only impoverish people in his country.
He said elephant numbers had exploded as a result of conservation efforts, and hunting helped keep them in check.
...
Botswana is home to about a third of the world's elephant population - over 130,000 - more than it has space for.
Herds were causing damage to property, eating crops and trampling residents, Mr Masisi said.
Botswana has previously given 8,000 elephants to neighbouring Angola, and has offered hundreds more to Mozambique, as a means of bringing the population down.
"We would like to offer such a gift to Germany," Mr Masisi said, adding that he would not take no for an answer.
...
In March, UK MPs voted to support a ban on importing hunting trophies, but the legislation has further scrutiny to pass before becoming law.
A pledge to ban the import of hunting trophies was included in the Conservatives' 2019 general election manifesto.
Botswana and other southern African countries make a lot of money from rich Westerners who pay thousands of dollars for a permit to shoot an animal and then take its head or skin back home as a trophy.
They say this money is used to help conservation efforts, and local people, so they are less likely to be tempted to poach the animals.
Sounds like the problem is humans encroaching on elephants and not Germany banning trophies (as well as a whole host of other issues that have put the Global South at a great disadvantage).
Sounds like the problem is humans encroaching on elephants and not Germany banning trophies (as well as a whole host of other issues that have put the Global South at a great disadvantage).
Well, yes. But if the argument is "allowing trophy hunting provides a financial means to keep game preserves and national parks functional, without which they will necessarily be turned into...
Sounds like the problem is humans encroaching on elephants and not Germany banning trophies (as well as a whole host of other issues that have put the Global South at a great disadvantage).
Well, yes. But if the argument is "allowing trophy hunting provides a financial means to keep game preserves and national parks functional, without which they will necessarily be turned into something else that makes money because Africa is poor" responding "well the real problem is that you Africans are encroaching on elephant territory" doesn't actually solve anything. (I know you didn't mean it in a bad way. I am not offended.)
Much like the American clothing company Patagonia's recent stand against hydropower dams, I am frustrated by rich European governments taking a stand against big game hunting. Yes, dams kill fish and change the environment, and yes, hunting kills animals, but in both cases there are no obvious alternatives and the benefits seem to outweigh the drawbacks. (In several African countries more than 80% of the power comes from hydro. What would you prefer? Burning even more coal?)
I am not a hunter. But I live in a country that is visited by big game hunters, and every trophy is essentially a direct transfer of cash from a wealthy country to a poorer country. Game tags cost thousands - sometimes tens of thousands - of US dollars, which goes straight to the government and the park. Then there are the flights, the car rentals, the local guides, the safari lodge, the food... All of this boosts the local economy, which is generally speaking sorely needed.
There are some downsides. If poorly managed, the benefits of allowing game hunting can entice governments to issue too many tags, depleting herds. If we're talking about elephants specifically, they have very long memories, so if they have learned to fear vehicles and people, it makes non-hunting tourism more difficult, because you can't get as close to the animals. There are also some ethical questions regarding whether it is ever right to kill an animal.
But on the other hand, there are massive benefits. Yes, governments might be enticed to allow too much hunting, but they then have massive incentives (and enough cash) to stop poaching (bigger, healthier herds = more opportunities to get money from hunters). Poachers, obviously, have no limits on how much they will kill and are often far, far crueller to the animals than the big game hunters who are looking to kill with a single bullet. And regarding the impacts to non-hunting tourism, poaching is much, much more damaging than big-game hunting is.
At the end of the day, I see it like this: humans are going to kill animals, whether it be through poaching or through hunting. You can either regulate it, control it, and turn it to good, or you can try to ban it and know that it will happen behind the scenes without your consent. And regarding the ethical questions over whether it is ever right to kill an animal... animals are typically still alive for the first minutes/hours that they are being eaten by predators. I find it hard to argue that hunting is crueller than nature.
What a even-tempered and well-considered post! I'm focused on these sorts of wildlife issues (and human-wildlife conflict in specific) in just this area of the world! So let's talk facts!
You might be interested to know that big game hunters were a huge boon to tourism of southern Africa, particularly South Africa, up through the 1980s. They helped to pave the way for a whole variety of different kinds of travel, safari drives, and other types of tourism entertainment and at increasingly affordable prices. That, plus the acceptance of international air travel and the boom in camera ownership in the mid-1970s, made photo-safari tourism a truly viable option for so many people.
Tourism makes up a good chunk of GDP for many African countries, though usually not as big as people expect. Pre-pandemic, South Africa had about 15 million tourists and the tourism sector accounted for about 2.8% of GDP in 2018. But even a small chunk of that GDP is important, and if trophy hunting is a big part of that, then we should be able to see it make a difference.
In a 2015 report commissioned by Safari Club International, it was claimed that in 2012 the tens of thousands of trophy hunters visiting eight countries in southern Africa spent as much as $426 million. As you said in your comment, that money is spread across a few different sectors serving tourists (airlines, restaurants, etc.). I've talked with hunters in almost every one of those countries because I spend a fair amount of time out there. I would imagine that at least half of that money goes to the property/company selling the hunts. $426 million sounds like a lot! But compare that to the $17 billion spent by tourists that same year across those countries. It's about 2.5%. So how could it be true that trophy hunting is that economically important?
SCI's report claimed that South Africa, the most popular trophy hunting destination, had 8,387 hunting tourists in one year. Those hunters spent at least $141 million. South Africa's GDP has been somewhere in the range of $323 billion and $458 billion each year for the last 15 years. So no matter what year you pick, $141 million, or even twice or three times that, isn't a significant part of GDP. But let's back up a minute. 8,397 trophy hunters? South Africa had around 9 million tourists that year. Are all the hunting tourists super-rich? No, unfortunately for their narrative they're not, and some of them a budget big game hunters. And that's from SCI's own report! SCI's figures for Botswana suggest trophy hunters spent $7.2 million, which is a single-digit percent of tourist spending and an even smaller fraction of Botswana's $13.9 billion GDP that year.
And all along we've been taking a pro-hunting company, that actively lobbies in the US and internationally, at face value. Their own numbers don't even show that trophy hunters are making a materially important impact. If they've inflated their own numbers, and they likely have, then that suggests the economic importance of trophy hunting is further over-stated.
There's an interesting report that serves to disprove SCI's claims. But there are several reports that do and I know a few Africans who used to work at hunting concessions who will also tell you the same thing. Trophy hunting isn't as profitable as they claim, nor are local communities helped much, if at all, by the revenue. This report also explains how some of the land used for trophy hunting could generate revenue if it were put to other use -- so if trophy hunting stopped entirely, like it did in Kenya, people in surrounding communities wouldn't suddenly become poor.
Unfortunately, people in communities surrounding private game reserves (PGRs) already are poor. Why is that of PGRs are bringing in all this revenue? Part of it is because of the massive amount of corruption that fails to direct tax revenue towards the programs it's earmarked for. Part of it is because there isn't enough money being generated by PGRs to serve the population. And part of it is because many private game reserves are set up like LLCs in the US and have some creative ways of marginalizing their actual profits and using tax loopholes.
It's pretty clear that trophy hunting has been contributing less and less as a percentage to tourism revenue over time, and GDP in general, maybe with the exception of the pandemic when tourism was dramatically reduced. It's also pretty clear to anyone who has been out there that communities aren't benefiting from the presence of many of the PGRs around them, including some of the biggest photo-safari destinations, because there is an extreme imbalance in sharing the proceeds, in tax revenue even being distributed properly, and a crippling practice of disenfranchising the poor as much as possible. Thula Thula has come under a lot of scrutiny for this and if they can, then so can hunting reserves.
So I want to caution people that while it's easy to continue to repeat things that sound convenient and have a history of being said, and might have even almost been true 40 years ago, that doesn't always make it true today. There are lots of common myths that people believe and we give it little credence, but really it's repeating those myths and perpetuating them that is continuing to build the foundation for the harm that's actually being done. And that's because it's often self-serving and suits the personal philosophy of the person saying it. There's already been at least one commenter in this thread busy confirming their own biases by agreeing with a complete myth that only serves the interest of a few people -- people they might identify with on the surface, but actually have little real commonality with that -- big game trophy hunting in a very loosely regulated part of the world, for instance.
I'm literally on the way to a wildlife conference where people with experience combating human-wildlife conflict and poaching -- people who are actually involved in successful programs to reverse the damage done by the racist policies that helped to shape the map of land ownership in southern Africa. If you'd like me to ask them some questions on your behalf, shoot me a message and I'll see what I can do. I'm actively focused on wildlife conservation, have traveled all over southern Africa, and I'm sure I can help bring the facts into focus for you and others who have questions. And I'm sure the people I know who are involved in anti-poaching and counter-trafficking operations would be happy to help dispel this myth that not only puts the brakes on their momentum, but also steamrolls over their positive success stories and helps to feed the mechanism of bribery and corruption that is such a problem in these countries.
By the way, if you've never seen what a trophy hunt could look like, and I'm totally cherry-picking here, I encourage you to watch one of these videos. Have you ever seen canned hunting? Or seen a hunt conducted entirely from the back of a moving vehicle? It's illegal, but it happens. What about a lion that's darted multiple times to make it easier for a hunter to shoot? If it sounds unpalatable, consider what poverty is like for the people in the communities who often aren't getting a cent of the trophy hunting proceeds because of tax loopholes. And because people keep repeating things that make them feel good and take the eye off of real solutions. Really makes the whole situation worth it, doesn't it? Want to talk real solutions? They exist and you're not talking about them. Let's do that when I get back instead of talking about myths.
This:
Makes this:
Seem very sarcastic, in retrospect.
Your post spent a lot of time arguing that trophy hunting isn't as economically beneficial as a pro-hunting lobby has claimed. Not that it's not beneficial, but that it's not as beneficial as some might think. Which is a fair point, but hardly a condemnation of trophy hunting. You didn't touch at all on the assertion that hunting helps conserve land for wildlife instead of, for example, being slashed and burned for palm oil plantations.
As I said in the beginning, I am not a hunter. I think shooting an elephant is horrible. But when you conclude your post, quite literally, with "your solution is wrong and there are real solutions, but you're not talking about them... anyway, no time to detail those solutions now," I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with that. Your tone really rubbed me the wrong way.
I would say it's a fairly strong condemnation of trophy hunting. Reading your post, I was under the impression that trophy hunting was single-handedly raising a significant fraction of people out of poverty, but now I see that the number is almost negligible.
Trophy hunting must be considered on-balance. Your post glossed-over the most important counterargument against trophy hunting: that killing large game for sport -- especially elephants, which live for decades and practice death rituals -- is wrong. Personally I am not particularly fond of arguments in which people attempt to offset a moral harm to an individual of a group by a monetary contribution to the entire group. I mean, imagine if the US attempted to solve homelessness by granting licenses to hunt homeless people. Sure, maybe you could use those proceeds to lift some people out of poverty, but that would still be morally reprehensible!
I would be willing to accept trophy hunting if there were almost literally no alternative. But having read @ChingShih's post, I'm not convinced there's really even a problem that needs to be addressed.
Fair enough. Bad word choice on my part.
I understand and respect this viewpoint. I glossed over it because I don't believe that anybody will change their mind on an ethical stance because of a post on the internet, so it is more worthwhile to talk about some of the other factors.
With respect to chingshih, I don't think it's correct to call hundreds of millions of dollars a year negligible in Africa. They cited a report to disprove the economic effects of hunting. The cited report was commissioned by an anti-hunting lobby, which is normal and appropriate, but I am mentioning it because chingshih made a lot of hay out of the figures from a report commissioned by a hunting lobby, suggesting that those figures were overstated. That is certainly true, but we should keep in mind that the figures from the negative report are then likely understated. In any case, the negative report suggested that the marginal effects of hunting probably only resulted in an additional 7,000-15,000 jobs. Let's split the difference and call it 10,000. The bottom line is this - 10,000 jobs in rural Africa is not negligible.
I would love to see this. Aside from that recent documentary on an elephant preserve in India for orphans, I have no idea what options are available. That also didn't go into where the money came from to run the preserve.
I'll have more time to address this tomorrow, but I realize it might actually be more informative if I just direct you to a couple organizations that have pretty well-constructed reports on their activities specific to elephant-human conflict mitigation. I can't speak to individual preserves, and certainly some of them, like zoos, aren't run well, but if you find out the name of the documentary I will take a look and reply accordingly.
This is wordy, but clicking through the major links will prove to have more engaging content than what I can produce. :)
Wildlife SOS is a NGO in India that runs not one, but 12 rescue and long-term centers for everything from snakes and small mammals to bears, leopards, and elephants. When people ask about NGOs doing great work that aren't a bunch of westerners going overseas and telling local people how to do things, I point to Wildlife SOS. They've been nailing this since their founding in 1995 and their impact is enormous. Specific to human-wildlife conflict, they have several programs that all target different challenges communities face when living near wildlife, including: rescuing leopards from communal wells and building animal-proof alternatives; supporting policy to build better visibility and safety corridors for trains passing through dense forests (the habitat of elephants and tigers); educating local communities and holding law enforcement seminars about the false basis of folk medicines relying on bear parts; I think they also do the same with respect to tiger and leopard parts; and a program and 5 rescue hotlines (getting literally over 1 million calls a year) to provide resources to people who unexpectedly have an animal visitor. No matter the size or number of legs, they send professionals out to cities and rural communities to catch-and-release or to bring the animal to a rehab center for a checkup.
The most high-tech Wildlife SOS program is probably their method of sharing elephant alerts with local communities based on information from tracking collars. Many NGOs have been using GPS or radio-based tracking collars for years or decades and they're placed on select elephants during health checkups and other veterinarian-supervised activities. Wildlife SOS and a number of African NGOs I'm aware of including Elephant-Human Relations Aid and Big Life Foundation, now use this data as an early warning system so that communities can be more careful when driving down a specific road (everyone has seen those videos of elephants suddenly appearing from densely forested areas to stop trucks and steal their bananas) or to give the community time to deploy commercial or home-grown chili pepper. The early warning system is phenomenal and the data-sharing is also instilling more trust between the communities and the neighboring NGOs. The beehives have proven quite effective in preventing bulls and herds from raiding crops and discouraging them from an easy meal that infringes on the livelihoods of rural farmers. I've visited a couple communities in Namibia where people grew the peppers in their personal gardens. They found it really funny. As someone who really loves elephants, I don't think it's very nice, but at least it's non-lethal. As a quick tangent, beehives have been shown to ward off elephants while also providing farmers with a lucrative source of income. I don't know if Wildlife SOS is also trying beehives due to that probably attracting bears, but Save the Elephants seems to have sponsored a project in India in the past.
Big Life Foundation, a Canadian NGO operating across ~1.6 million acres of East Africa, has been incredibly successful and I wish more of their success stories made the mainstream news. They have a number of programs that have been helping the Maasai people and neighboring groups to better coexist with changing wildlife and land usage patterns (including in recent history the Kenyan government blocking them from grazing cattle on public lands that in some cases may have historically been tribal lands).
Big Life has a predator compensation fund that's not only protecting lions, leopards, and other carnivores from retaliation killings, but they are also helping to educate communities about predators and frankly helps communities to keep some of the livestock farmers honest. There's a short video and some blog posts that go into more detail. Big Life isn't the only NGO out there with compensation programs. Snow Leopard Trust, operating in Central Asia, also has one. Several NGOs have picked up this idea because it's cheaper to pay for some of these individual incidents and also instill some communal responsibility, than it is to spend money arresting people involved in revenge killings (whether they kill the correct animal or not). All of these NGOs have very readable annual reports that, yes, have a lot of feel-good stuff inside them (and fluffy leopards), but also report on some of the major and minor successes of these programs and why it's meaningful to the local community.
Big Life is kinda notable in that they have what I would say is the most impressive and sophisticated elephant conflict mitigation programs (complete with rangers and veterinarians deployed by helicopters) to provide non-violent solutions when elephants enter tribal land or communal space as well as provide medical aid to animals injured by humans, whether that be by poison, spear, or firearm. You can read more about their results in their quarterly and annual reports. Pick one, they're pretty nice and graphical.
These aren't the only NGOs doing some great work on providing non-lethal alternatives. Various groups are working on both practical solutions that are working in other regions, as well as policy. They're constructing wildlife corridors, working with states/provinces to better plan roads, improving national park habitats to retain animals rather than allow them to disperse into human settlements (and even cities), educating people in rural communities who have no formal education or oral history of coexisting with megafauna, and much more. I'll try to get to that next time!
The documentary I was referring to is, The Elephant Whisperers.
Thank you for all the info! It'll take me a bit to go through all the links, but I really appreciate it.
As somebody who occasionally hunts, I agree that legal and regulated hunting is more ethical than buying factory farmed meat and can be done humanely.
That said, I think I’d draw a pretty firm ethical distinction between “big game hunting”, which more commonly refers to hunting deer, elk, etc., and hunting endangered species like elephants. I take particular issue with “trophy hunting” generally and the method these sort of trips employ, where the animal is essentially corralled for the client who doesn’t do much more than pull a trigger.
If in Botswana, elephants are beyond the carrying capacity of the available land, does that change your analysis?
Potentially, if relocation isn’t an option (or in the event that the elephant is known to be dangerous, obviously). I will always object to shooting a penned, tied up, or similarly constrained animal and calling it “sporting” or “hunting” rather than what it really is, which is slaughtering. Slaughtering an animal can be okay if done humanely and for good reason, but it’s still reprehensible if it’s being done solely for a trophy and the rest of the animal is being wasted.
What about relocation to Germany?
Is Germany the natural habitat for elephants?
We've got about 40 african elephants in zoos across the country. Let's say as an olive branch to Botswana we double that capacity.... I don't think we're making a dent in their excess population.
You don't enjoy the sport of driving a Land Rover up to a sleeping lion that has become so comfortable around humans that he just keeps snoozing and then putting a cap in his heart so you can hang his head on your wall?
You drive the Land Rover yourself? Why put in so much effort?
Yes I agree these people are assholes, but I don't think it changes any of my arguments. The money still mostly goes to conservation and the local community, no matter how much work the hunter (or "hunter") put in (or didn't).
I realize this might seem like a strawman on the big game hunting thing, as that is what the article is about; and I don't want to derail the conversation, just talk about that one point in general because I know a little about it. If anyone knows more, and I'm sure someone here does, feel free to negate or expand on anything here :).
I'm not well enough informed to talk about big game hunting, but I do know a bit about the dam removal efforts and can weigh in on why they are being opposed. I will also admit my partner used to work for Patagonia in the Netherlands and travelled to Bosnia to support the group of local women there fighting for the dam to be removed. All of those potential conflicts of interest and shortcomings in the open....
Most of the anti-dam sentiment is actually based on economics, particularly the cost benefit of benefits from the dam (power generation, water storage, flood mitigation) compared against the costs (cost of initial construction, cost of maintenance, loss of resources such a fisheries). Historically it's been a pretty easy benefits in costs out, but those models miss a good number of additional costs and potential harms. Here in California the initial calculations for dams, such as the recently removed Klamath dam, calculated benefits that waaaay outstripped their true numbers. When you have drought years the run rates of rivers drop and don't produce the same amount of energy and with climate change we've seen reduced rates across the American West. As it turns out much of the initial water use and flow rate analysis was done during a period of heightened rain fall.
So that problem is over estimating benefits. The other side of the coin is accounting for costs. Initial costing often overlooked or undervalued the cost of dam removal, a very expensive process. Tack onto that unforeseen impacts such as the proliferation of toxic algae blooms with lower flow rates and increasing temperatures, and in many cases the initial calculous does add up to a net gain. And that is without calculating in all the economic benefits of the ecosystem services healthy wetlands provide.
So while there is a large faction of folks who just want to "return the world to the way it was", the actual governmental efforts and the changes that are taking place are looking at the total gain or losses a dam project or current dam provide and make decisions based on that analysis. I'm not suggesting giving carte blanch to remove all the dams globally, but I think we should be looking at how our infrastructure is actually benefitting both local and national communities. A lot of these projects were put in when we didn't have the capabilities we have now to truly understand the impacts and externalities of a dam and I think it is time to reassess which we want to keep, which we want to scrap, and if there are potential success point for new ones.
This is a very interesting point. Thank you.
In broad strokes, I agree with all of your points.
After humans eliminate the (other) natural predators, they inherit the responsibility of managing the prey herds themselves, whether they like it or not.
Consider it the hunting version of the "if you feed a stray" rule.
I grew up as a deer hunter in Wisconsin, where I spent many years paying close attention to how the state (the Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources) managed the deer herd there.
When a governmental agency is trying to manage a prey animal based on how much revenue they can bring in ... it always goes badly. The money skews the policies. In Wisconsin, over many decades, the list of things that went badly, managing the deer herd there, is long and sordid.
However, not managing it at all would have been 10x worse, and generally speaking, most people in the WI DNR were absolutely doing their best to balance a delicate and complex ecosystem.
Having too many elephants is a good problem; not one I ever expected to see in my lifetime.
Learning how to manage that herd will have to be a trial-and-error thing; hopefully, they try to take lessons from others before them, like the WI DNR and--I'm sure--100s (1000s?) of other such programs around the world. But it's their herd, and their responsibility to manage it, and Germany trying to control how they do it, smells suspiciously like the next chapter of Colonialism.
I don’t think fully mature elephants ever had natural predators besides humans. If they’re preyed upon it would have been as juveniles.
That's kinda true.
Lions, hyenas and humans all hunted them occasionally, and probably some mega-predators back before the last Ice Age ended, but officially, no, they have no natural predators.
I don't know that much about elephants ... but if they are over-populating the region, then something is out of whack, and I would be shocked if it wasn't, somehow, our fault.
Not necessarily out of whack. They’re overpopulating because they’re competing for space with humans. They’re not necessarily over the carrying capacity of the land, they’re just eating people’s crops.
I guess African elephants aren’t like the Asian ones where they can be trained as draft animals, so it’s probably harder to live alongside them.
I genuinely understand why you might feel that way and I would probably agree with all of your objections. Trophy hunting is a morally reprehensible act. I know some people envision rich white guys needlesy flying half way around the world, just to shoot a defenceless and endangered animal with a big gun from a safe distance, after the locals did all the hard work, just to live out some colonial alpha-male fantasy. Harkens back to the good old days when it was the Europeans God given right to civilize the savage world.
In a perfect world, needlessly ending life can not be tolerated. But I can't overstate how imperfect the world is, particularly in a third world country. If you see it in media or even tour, it may seem relatable and even progressive. But go a few kilometers off the highways and you might as well be on another planet. And even these people have bills to pay.
So think about it from a local perspective. The beneficiaries of colonialism, are imposing laws that does not meaningfully benefit themselves but directly impacts the lives and livelyhoods of the already impoverished. At the same rural communities need to clean up the mess of some well meaning conservationists. If we didn't know better, it'd almost feel like a spiteful position.
The saddest part is that regardless of what happens with the ban, these elephants will likely still be killed. And it has nothing to do with poaching douchbags looking for "the thrill of the hunt". Over the last two decades I've seen more and more of the African countryside carved up by farmland. Local produce and grain companies pay a fairly generous sum to villages and substance farmers to grow their crops. These fields inevitably expand into wild habitats. Elephant incidents have been on the rise for a while now. Destroyed fields, attacks, car accidents, violent bulls. A buddy of mine is a ranger in Zambia and there are real efforts to relocate, but at a certain point a call needs to be made. And if there's a dumb foreigner throwing around more cash than a years with of food, you're insane not to take it. Do it enough and maybe you could afford college for a few kids or generator or water pump.
Please don't think I'm saying you're wrong for morally objecting. It probably makes you a better person than me. But it's a really messy situation that goes well beyond just animal rights. This report about the risks of a ban was floating around when this issue was in the UK news. While it's admittedly biased, it does highlight the many other factors involved.
I am not understanding what you mean by this.
I’m not sure why they bothered to comment since it’s just noise, but it seems they meant that they are so upset that can’t be civil or respectful. It’s also heavily implied that they think the person they’re replying to is [insert morally negative sentiment of choice here], but without actually having to live with the consequences of saying that (because it would violate site rules).
I think it still contributes something and it makes it clear that people who despise what @R3qn65 said exist. It specifically cuts off further discussion, but I think it's similar to, say, the socialist party having a candidate for president. Just acknowledging their existence gets people talking about it.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree on that point. Saying, in effect, “I don’t like this and think you’re a bad person” doesn’t really add anything substantive to a discussion. Particularly when done in a passive-aggressive manner to evade any minor ramifications that might result from actually voicing an opinion.
If instead they had said “I don’t want to get into a debate, but I disagree on X,Y,Z moral grounds”, that would have had the same net message, but it would have actually meaningfully contributed to the conversation.
I am not sure I agree with this. I really don't see it adding much to just say "I despise what you said" - especially if you don't even say why.
If the point is "you're an asshole for being so jaded towards the shooting of animals," then fair enough, but you've got to at least say that.
The title sounds like a joke but the grievances from Botswana stem from something real and tangible. It's still a somewhat childish response to a possible curtailing of the hunting industry, but at least I get where they come from.
Perhaps the money could be spent elsewhere promoting other industries that do not rely on the finicky business of hunting big animals for sport.
From the article:
...
...
Sounds like the problem is humans encroaching on elephants and not Germany banning trophies (as well as a whole host of other issues that have put the Global South at a great disadvantage).
Well, yes. But if the argument is "allowing trophy hunting provides a financial means to keep game preserves and national parks functional, without which they will necessarily be turned into something else that makes money because Africa is poor" responding "well the real problem is that you Africans are encroaching on elephant territory" doesn't actually solve anything. (I know you didn't mean it in a bad way. I am not offended.)