Quote:
Originally Posted by IronNoggin
1. Wildlife: Many of the effected populations simply would not exist without those programs.
2. Locals: Not only do they have a reason to co-exist with wildlife, in many cases they also receive the meat from hunts.
3. Hunters: The game exists in good numbers, including larger specimens for those so inclined.
Downsides??
Nog
|
To address your points:
1) Yes because their governments don't care enough to preserve them for any other reason than as cash generators.
2) Yes they coexist, in some cases, because they are slowly learning that if they kill all the animals the money flow from outside sources stops. No outside hunting for big dollars and pretty much every species would be wiped out. I get it. I just don't think money should be the only reason.
Yes they get the meat. It's just too bad they aren't allowed to hunt themselves thanks to them not having a clue how to manage numbers.
IMO it's not far off non status being the only ones with enough cash to hunt here, BUt, the meat goes to the indigenous peoples so it's all good.
If you want to cause more derision from the anti's make it widely know that the hunters are only in Africa for the horns and hides.
3) The game exists in good numbers? All species? Lions? Is that why most of them are farm raised and released into the wild for hunting purposes? There might be decent numbers of some species in some of the parks where they get max protection but all over as you are saying? I don't think so.
All of this said I know where you're coming from and I'm not condemning the hunters. As I said before, I'm condemning countries that keep animals alive solely for the cash they generate because that's the only way they can rationalize it. It's far from ideal.