Back when "Cecil" the lion was killed, I said I supported the hunt. As expected, I was vilified.
Several people even said killing the lion was murder.
So, what do you think about THIS? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/23/cecil-the-lion-zimbabwe-200-lions-overpopulation_n_9297298.html
Yes, Zimbabwe later said it won't cull lions. Backtrack much? Negative publicity has made African governments back up more than once. When the keyboard warriors move on to the next Cause du Jour, the African governments quietly go back to what they originally planned.
SAVE THE LIONS
How? Where?
Try this. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/25/culling-to-conserve-a-hard-truth-for-lion-conservation/ "There is basically no more space left in Africa for a new viable population of lions."
The outcry over the lion hunt is condemning far more of these beasts to death without the financial remuneration which comes from a paid hunt. If you are one of those who bitched and screamed and whined, then YOU are responsible for these critters' deaths. And more of 'em too boot.
So. How does it feel to be a murderer? Keep reading, I splain. Call it huntersplaining if you will.
While I'm on the subject, read these (except you won't because they directly and with evidence aforethought contradict your weltanschauung)
PUT YO MONEY WHERE YO MOUF IS
“Whenever I donate a hunting trip for the Children's Leukemia Foundation, Ronald McDonald Cancer House, all these children's charities, I offer the anti-hunters an opportunity: if you donate more to the children's charity than the hunters donate we won't go hunting.”
Ted Nugent
How much have you contributed?
This is, bluntly, economics. Are the animals worth more alive or dead? The qualified answer, I 'splain below, is they are worth more when they are hunted.
http://conservationmagazine.org/2015/10/what-if-we-banned-trophy-hunting-in-africa/ "And in other places, the fees derived from legalized trophy hunting can fund important conservation efforts on the ground. As WWF researcher Robin Naidoo points out in a new paper in the journal Conservation Biology, the Western opposition to trophy hunting is a bit ironic given how much funding legal hunting generates for wildlife management and conservation in North America."
And "The results suggest that most conservancies need both hunting and ecotourism to benefit from their wildlife. Between 2003 and 2010, ecotourism benefits were larger than those from hunting, while hunting overshadowed ecotourism from 2010 onward. Hunting allowed payments and non-financial benefits (i.e. meat) to accumulate faster than ecotourism did, though ecotourism-related salaries have grown ten times faster than have those from hunting-related jobs."
And "Of 52 conservancies that had any sort of financial benefit from wildlife (that is, their income was higher than their expenses), more than half derived all or almost all those benefits from hunting. Just six were wholly or mostly reliant on ecotourism, while 18 conservancies benefited equally from both activities."
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/07/29/427451836/one-point-of-view-on-how-lions-can-earn-money-for-africa This guy says ecotourism generates more. He doesn't provide hard numbers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/travel/big-game-hunting-cecil-lion.html Again, few hard numbers, but this piece contradicts the NPR article.
So, if you object to trophy hunting, how much are you sending these African communities? Cash. Hard dollars. Money. Moral support does not feed hungry children. Lion and elephant steaks feed hungry children.
YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
You. Are. The. Problem. You are the reason lions, elephants and other animals are killed.
You. The person reading this. Me, the person writing this. All those hungry children in Africa. There's the problem.
Larry and Andy Wachowski nailed this one in The Matrix. "'I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure."
Not a new statement. Scott Westerfeld said the same thing, "...humanity is a disease, a cancer on the body of the world.” Similar statements appear in Red Dwarf, by Dave Foreman and many others. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/30-population-control-quotes-that-show-that-the-elite-truly-believe-that-humans-are-a-plague-upon-the-earth
There's a harsh truth for you.
The NGS article puts this slightly less plainly. "Culling is a management tool that may be used for many species. That includes: elephants, lions, kangaroos, and deer, basically animals that have very little natural control mechanisms other than disease and starvation, and that are now bounded by human settlements and live in smaller areas than they did historically."
In other words, PEOPLE are pushing animals. We shove them into ever more tiny habitats. They are not free to roam, hunt and naturally control their own numbers. Animals move. When they move, they bring their diseases, habits and ability to reproduce with them. They ruin crops grown to feed you and me. They attack people and pets.
http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html "Mountain lion attacks on people apparently increased dramatically since 1986."
Animals behave like animals. They do not respect man's boundaries.
More people means less room for animals. When animals run out of room, they run out of food, be that other animals or vegetation. They move to find more food. Food is highly concentrated around people.
And a REAL slap across the face - http://theconversation.com/wild-animals-are-starving-and-its-our-fault-so-should-we-feed-them-16803
And just because I like you, here's a punch to the gut - http://www.mercurynews.com/animal-life/ci_29553495/garbage-is-killing-thousands-wild-animals
Because I like simple things, and like to make things simple, I tell you there is a simple solution to this. You can support the people, which means killing the animals that threaten the people or you can support the animals, which means the people have got to go. I'm seriously leaning toward fewer people.
Compromise? On a large scale it does not work. Micro scale, it can and does work. Wildlife does not operate on a microscope, neither does humanity as a whole.
REVISE YOUR THINKING
I say revise your thinking. Many will not. In the face of empirical evidence, people will double-down and entrench deeper.
Reality is under no obligation to conform to your beliefs. Reject it and get run over. Let Darwin rule. Which solves some problems mentioned above.
Trophy hunting is NOT the problem. http://www.globalanimal.org/2016/07/07/an-africa-without-lions-angry-tweets-wont-help-african-lions/ "However, impoverished Africans are killing lions at a rate estimated at five to 10 times the number of lions killed from trophy hunting, and the hunts take place almost entirely within national parks and other 'protected' areas."
http://africanindaba.com/2014/03/kenya-wildlife-loved-to-death-march-2014-volume-12-2/ "Kenya’s much-praised ban on hunting, in fact, has had an impact opposite to its intent: wild animals are disappearing at an accelerating rate."
Botswana has a hunting ban, about 2.5 years old now. Many are asking the bank be lifted. http://africageographic.com/blog/botswanan-communities-want-exemptions-to-hunting-ban/
The third option is to starve, people and animals. Elephants starve to death naturally. Their teeth wear down and they cannot eat. Many other critters also starve to death.
I'm told by some anti-hunters and animal rights activists, this is natural. Let nature run its course.
Lemme axe you this: Which is more cruel? Starving to death or being killed by a hunter? Careful how you answer because whatever you say may be used as a Clue x 4 on you.
MAKING IT SIMPLE
Cut out the extraneous parts. Let's get right down to it.
"If you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese."
Ted Nugent
That is the reality. When people are trying to make a living and protect what is theirs, animals have an economic value. The highest economic value will be protected. If animals are worth the most as trophies, the community will guard them for licensed hunters. If the animals are worth the most as parts on the black market, poachers will kill every one they can find. If the animals are worth the most as a tourist attraction, then hunting of all kinds won't be allowed.
It's money. Period.
Free-roaming animals may bring in tourist dollars, but if that does not offset the crop, livestock and other damage created by the free-roaming critters, they will be killed.
Your call. Your wallet. You decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hi. I welcome lively debate. Attack the argument. Go after a person in the thread, your comments will not be posted.