steddyeddy wrote: » Preventing a species going extinct VS killing the guys who are facilitating their extinction. It's an easy choice.
ScumLord wrote: » Managed reserves are helping prevent species going extinct. The rub is they're funded by rich knobs that want trophies. If you can come up with a better way of funding them while employing locals then you should definitely make the suggestion to the relevant authorities in those countries.
steddyeddy wrote: » Yea shoot more poachers frankly. Poachers who also kill natives and anti poaching patrols by the way.
ScumLord wrote: » Who's going to pay for that? Not the local government. Without these parks it would be a free for all for poachers. Nothing would stand in their way. That's just the reality of the situation, protecting these animals costs money. Money the local nations don't have or won't spend on the protection of wild animals. These parks do what all modern nations do, turn things into resources that can be sold. Making the animals worth money to someone is the only way to save them in a capitalistic world.
Deleted User wrote: » If the kid was a poacher, he'd have held the head under the water. This is a man who doesn't even do it for the money, he just loves to kill certain people. As you brought up the "he loves kids" angle, what age was the youngest poacher he's shot dead?
archer22 wrote: » The thousands of people go to Africa to shoot these animals with only their cameras are the ones who pay.The tourism industry there is worth tens of millions of dollars to the economy.
archer22 wrote: » You have very strange ideas as to what those poachers are...they are not kids out to get a meal for the pot. They are highly organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups out to finance their other activities.They are armed with some astounding weaponry..a lot of it looted military hardware from Libyan military arsenals after the destruction of the country by western air power.These weapons have now flooded sub Saharan Africa. There have even been cases of poachers using heavy machine guns to mow down entire Elephant herds...and they have no qualms either about mowing down any rangers who get in their way.Neither do they show any empathy for the dead rangers or the families they leave behind. Those people are murderous scum who care for nothing but themselves and only a fool would take chances with them or have sympathy for them. Yes perhaps some of the good guys fighting them do take pleasure in outsmarting and killing them, but we are not in their boots so in no position to judge them on that. BTW the guy I was talking about does get paid as do all of them...they can't live on fresh air!.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » Most of the guys who engage in trophy hunting suffer with problems downstairs.
ScumLord wrote: » They may go some way towards funding the parks, I haven't heard anything to say those type of tourists are covering the cost. Those type of tourists probably aren't spending huge amounts of money. How many of those types of tourists would it take to replace a hunter who's paying $50,000. What's the difference n profits? One hunter isn't going to cost as much to accommodate and 400 people. Are you just coming up with things off the top of your head with no actual knowledge of numbers, costs and profits. You can't just say "do this instead", will it actaully work?
archer22 wrote: » No I don't know the actual figures but nobody gets accommodation free...and 400 are going to pay 400 times more for accommodation than one individual..so you do the maths on that as to which is the most valuable to the economy. Also 400 are going to buy 400 times more meals etc than one individual, so the 50,000 dollars aint looking so big now.
dodderangler wrote: » Yes it does. If you don't own any livestock or are in full view of the wildlife and effects predation and vermin have on the land and farmers then you have no opinion. You can't say this and that about hunters without knowing what we do.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » True. But they were not there to shoot those elephants.
Discodog wrote: » So sorry that we shot the wrong elephants :rolleyes:
Discodog wrote: » The great Dictator has spoken. I will kill animals & ban opinions. All these opinions on Boards must drive you nuts.
steddyeddy wrote: » In 2013 the tourism revenue for Tanzania was 4.4 billion Dollars.
dodderangler wrote: » Nope. Just the idiotic ones. Especially the childish responses like yours. Bet you think that wildlife is like a Disney film. The deer get up in the morning and play hopscotch with the local fox and then later the rabbits go to the weasels house to play poker?
Stigura wrote: » Anyone who'd like to gain a bit of insight to a Real " Hunter " need look no further than the writings of Jim Corbett. Legendary hunter and killer of man eating tigers, back in the 1900's, India. Most of my life I disregarded and actively avoided his books. Assumed they'd be full of the usual, 'As the mighty beast broke cover and charged me, I stood my ground with steely resolve. Letting it have both barrels only at the last minute ..... Blah, blah, f**king blah.' As it is, it's far more along the lines of; " I got a call from the Governor; 'Corbett? I hear you're the man for a tiger? Well, get yeself down to kwalaloop. There's a man eater down there. Taken six villagers, It needs sorting.' And I thought; Oh jesus! Not again! Why Me every bloody time?! " " Three days later, I'm creeping down this track. Absolutely bricking it. Knowing this ghastly thing could explode out of the jungle all around me at any second. Best laxative known to man! I was so terrified I could hardly breathe ..... " Seriously. Pro or Anti; Read Man Eaters Of Kumaon.
ScumLord wrote: » Perhaps, but sort of irrelevant. Tanzania is a country, not a nature reserve. What you really need to compare is reserves that do allow hunting, to reserves that don't and how effective they are.
Discodog wrote: » Yes but that man wasn't like modern "hunters". He was more akin to the marksmen who are licensed to cull deer etc. He wasn't doing it for fun & paying a fortune for the privilege.
Stigura wrote: » Have ye read it?
steddyeddy wrote: » A country which gets most of its tourism revenue from nature reserves. Most healthy people don't enjoy killing elephants. The market of these types is too small to replace traditional safari tourism. Trophy hunting sickens most people.
ScumLord wrote: » Does it get most it's revenue from nature reserves? Which ones are most effective? Are the ones catering for large crowds of people basically just big zoos?
steddyeddy wrote: » Yep. Those and Kilimanjaro. Ngorogoro and Serengeti I'd guess. Increase trophy hunting and you risk alienating the normal tourists.
Africacheck.org wrote: "A resource economist who worked across Southern Africa and established a national environmental economics programme in Namibia, Dr Jon Barnes, wrote in a 2001 paper: “Consumptive wildlife uses [such as hunting] are relatively unimportant in terms of economic contribution, but they are the only use values possible in the less well-endowed two-thirds of the wildlife estate.” Similarly, Dr John Hanks, a zoologist and former chief executive of WWF South Africa, argues that “where there are high wildlife densities and scenically attractive landscapes, there is greater potential for photographic tourism than for trophy hunting. “However, in those areas where large mammals are few and scattered and the scenery is mundane, photographic safaris will not be viable. Here the better land-use option for biodiversity conservation can often be trophy hunting rather than domestic livestock and shifting agriculture. More significantly for resident communities, they have an incentive to protect the large mammals that would otherwise be seen as a threat to their livelihoods.”
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5c1c06444977305a5e99f4ce35119320.svg)
