Does trophy hunting get a bad rap?

Great Debates
1

I can’t remember any time in the past when there was as much public discourse about trophy (“big game”) hunting as there is now. The fact that Trump’s sons like to do it has put it in the spotlight recently, and Trump just recently attempted to roll back restrictions on the importation of ivory.

I’ve been seeing numerous Facebook posts shared, of lions, elephants, and giraffes in Africa killed by hunters, condemning it as pointless and cruel. On one such post, someone popped up to defend the practice, and his argument was basically that these animals NEED to be killed for conservation purposes, and that the park rangers would do it if the hunters didn’t - essentially, that it’s a necessary job that has to be done, so why not let hunters pay to do it? The meat of hunted animals, supposedly, gets eaten by “the villagers” (I had always assumed it was discarded.)

If this is true, I’m thinking maybe the outrage about big game hunting is misplaced. Do the people living in African villages profit economically from the hunts? Does the money paid to hunting guides by hunters actually get spread around, or is it pocketed by corrupt warlords or something? This is assuming the “it’s for conservation!” argument is remotely plausible. If rural African communities get an infusion of money from these hunters, that they wouldn’t otherwise get, I’m inclined to think of this hunting as a good thing, as long as endangered animals aren’t being targeted.

I grant that the whole “white hunter” thing has bad optics - it might look bad to a lot of people on a visceral level, but IS it actually the reprehensible outrage that it gets painted as?

2

To me, it is. It’s the idea that some rich dude/girl from the US can plan out a whole expensive-ass trip to Africa with the sole intention to be the one to kill a beautiful, large, old, and sometimes endangered animal strictly for one’s own pleasure. It’s sickening to me as my sphere of empathy can extend to these animals. I don’t know how a person decides to actively do that.

Having said that, I understand the need for population control… and might as well make some money off of it to help the problem.

It’s just the kind fucked-up soul that would be the one to take the burden to shoot one of these animals, but have glee about it, that i don’t understand.

3

Africa is continent with some 54 countries, each with its own hunting policies and differing levels of desirability to the Great White Hunter. I can only comment with knowledge only slightly above (SA) layman on South Africa, which has a well-developed hunting industry.

The need for culling animals has only arisen in the context of elephant hunting. It is apparent necessary even in the Kruger National Park, a massive conservation area approximately the size of Israel. I don’t know enough to debate its necessity, but I can safely say that I’ve heard an argument in favour of culling for other species.

Sounds doubtful and probably only true for “undesirable” meats, if at all. Meat removal and disposal is comparatively simple compared to transporting carcass to an acceptable facility for meat removal, packaging and distribution. My knowledge is insufficient to comment on problems of parasites or other pathogens.

Also,WTF is a small village, with limited refrigeration facilities, supposed to do with a ton or more of elephant meat? :dubious:

In South Africa at least, meat such as warthog and various antelope species, such as Kudu are served as venison or made into biltong (cured and dried meat similar to beef jerky). I have no idea what happens to the meat after a kill, but its not implausible that prior arrangement are made for the procurement, storage of distribution of the meat of trophy kills to commercial ventures with a focus on venison such as restaurants.

Impossible to answer -we’re talking a good number of countries with different policies… Here, I think most hunting operations will have some sort of corporate social welfare obligations, though I’m not sure what that will incorporate other than an obligation to hire from the local community for menial low-skill jobs.

Unless you’re hunting in Somalia or DRC, “corrupt warlords” are not a concern. Of course, some African countries are more corrupt than others.

In SA, the “hunting guide” will often be an employee of the institution concerned (such as a game farm) and although the hunter pays for his services, he isn’t directly hired by the hunter.

Giraffe, elephant and lion are all are listed as “vulnerable” by the IUCN and have a higher threat level in some countries. (eg West African lion population is listed as Critically Endangered). Whether you consider hunting such animals a “good thing” depends on whether you consider it acceptable to hunt any animal with a IUCN threat level higher than “Least Concern.”

4

Really: the life of an individual animal doesn’t matter much. The health of the species does matter. Someone dropping 5 or 6 figures on a hunt does more for the future survival of a species than PETA complaints. Game management is expensive, and the fact is that species that are “useful” to humans pique our interest more.

Plus Ricky Gervais is a hack so anything that gets his goat is a plus.

5

I think people are surprised that trophy hunting is a thing that still exists. It just seems so “first-half-of-the-20th-century”.

I mean, if someone told me they killed a lion, I’d say: “That’s horrible! I’m sorry you had to do that. When did it attack you?” Actually bragging about would seem bizarre.

6

The argument that they ‘need to be killed for conservation purposes’ is generally pretty poor.

The argument generally goes that there is occasionally a need for a cull of, say, male lions, as there will normally only be one (occasionally two more) males to a pride, which could contain any more females. Cubs are roughly equal sexes, so, as there is a limited amount of space, yes, you wind up with extra males, who in a huge wild population would fight each other or die some other way, that are surviving in the reduced park space they have.

Problem is, trophy hunters want, well, trophies. They don’t want to shoot the junior male that lost fights, the lion that would die in a natural system, the one the park rangers might be trying to cull, they want to shoot the big alpha male. They want to ‘win’ against the winner, not the loser.

The effects on the population can include reducing the occurrence of things like big horns and other ‘trophies’, it can even reduce average body size, not to mention the effects on lion prides of losing the male of the pride (the new male killing existing cubs etc.). They’re social animals, and indiscriminate killing can totally screw up the social dynamics, especially for elephants. I don’t have time to find a cite right now, but I do remember reading that killing older elephants from family groups appears to measurably increases the rate at which young elephants cause problems to humans, basically, if you kill Grandma off, the kids are more likely to leave their traditional routes and go damage crops and attack locals.

Most of the ‘hunting reserves’ I’ve come across don’t pass on much more than the odd guiding job and maybe some unwanted meat to local people, the huge sums that can be paid just wind up going to the landowner.

7

They’re not really there for the hunting, are they?

8

I say if they want a trophy, they need to earn it.
Alone. With a knife. If that was good enough for Tarzan, it’s good enough for them.

9

Say, whatever happened to that dentist from Minnesota who killed a beloved lion on protected land?

10

Trophy hunting gets a bad rap because the idea of destroying a living animal for nothing other than the pleasure of it is pretty damn disturbing to anyone who isn’t sick in the head.

11

QFT. Personally, I think the country should revoke the passport of any citizen who leaves the country to hunt. Don’t let the assholes back in the US.

12

Actaully, that argument isnt the best one used for Trophy hunting. It is simple- show me the money! Trophy hunters bring in big bux to cash strapped areas that really can’t afford game refuges, rangers, etc.

*"The success that South Africa and other African countries have enjoyed with sustaining wild-animal populations via property rights has led several conservation organizations, including Save the Rhino and the World Wildlife Fund, to endorse such rights and supervised hunting as a strategy for preserving biodiversity.

As the Economist, in a 2010 article, pointed out, without the wild paying its way through something like supervised hunting, there’s little incentive and plenty of disincentive for the people who must live among exotic animals to care about their survival. Giraffes look cute to us Westerners, but for Masai cattle-herders in Kenya, they’re competition for water. A single elephant can devour or trample an African farmer’s entire crop overnight. "*

*At the same time, opposing sustainable trophy hunting could end up being worse for species conservation. While revenue from wildlife sightseeing is good, in most cases effective conservation requires much more. Without more funding creating incentives to conserve wildlife, many natural habitats will be converted to farmland, which is generally much worse for native wildlife and the entire ecosystem.

Trophy hunting can also have a smaller carbon and infrastructure footprint than ecotourism because it requires fewer paying customers for the same amount of revenue. Trophy hunting can even generate higher revenue than the most successful ecotourism enterprises.

Hunting can lead to larger wildlife populations because they are specifically managed to keep numbers higher. Larger animal populations are more resilient to extinction, and hunters have an interest in their protection. This contrasts with ecotourism where the presence of only a few individual animals is sufficient to ensure that the expectations of many paying tourists are met.*

http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(15)00303-1?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0169534715003031%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

“International pressure to ban trophy hunting is increasing. However, we argue that trophy hunting can be an important conservation tool, provided it can be done in a controlled manner to benefit biodiversity conservation and local people. Where political and governance structures are adequate, trophy hunting can help address the ongoing loss of species.”

13

It depends how much you like big game. Big game hunting means the animals are more valuable to the locals. People will make sure there are plenty of valuable animals while animals that cost people money by either killing livestock or destroying property will be destroyed. Since I plan on never going to Africa, as long as there are enough to put in zoos I am happy. I don’t have strong opinions about the optimal number of lions or elephants in the world.
The other consideration is that tourism is a good industry for poor countries to engage in. Other countries might be able to undercut them for textile manufacturing but there are very few places where tourists can go on an African safari or kill a lion.

14

Just out of curiosity, how much money could be raised if one were to auction off the chance to flip the switch or operate the plunger or join the firing squad in a perfectly legal American execution?

15

Are there other perfectly-legal activities you think we should revoke passports for? Or is this the only one?

16

I’m not surprised it still exists but it’s been out of favor for a long time. Even in the first half of the 20th century conservation concerns arose. I think it is a bizarre practice, it’s just killing defenseless animals from afar, and then being proud of it.

17

Probably a disturbingly high amount.

18

Are you equating the killing of a human with that of a animal?:confused:

19

This is how I see it also…the “conservation” argument notwithstanding, because it seems like an after-the-fact justification to appease people who are turned off by it. The real reason they kill the animal is because they want to kill the animal.

If it brings money into areas that need it, and helps stimulate the economy of African countries that are struggling, I’m inclined to think of it as a net positive for humanity even though it’s ethically sketchy. I feel the same way about Indian casinos - actually, I really hate gambling, I think it’s a really self-destructive activity, but people want to do it, so I’d rather the proceeds go towards helping an Indian reservation than into the pockets of Donald Trump and people like him.

20

Yes! It should be like the good old days when mammoths and bison were chased for 30 miles until they collapsed exhausted and were stabbed repeatedly with pointy sticks. Much cleaner than dying instantly.