Your social media outrage didn’t save the white rhino in South Africa, assholes like Walt Palmer did.

[Axulus]

Today, trophy hunting takes place in 23 sub-Saharan African nations, generating over $200 million and attracting over 18,000 clients each year. That’s money spent in the economies of multiple African nations directly pegged to the continuing presence of big game animals. It’s a large economic incentive for conservation of these species. And it’s growing.

This chart, from a study conducted by the University of Pretoria, demonstrates the increased economic value of trophy hunting in southern Africa. The explosive growth in South Africa is largely due to ranch land that had been dedicated to livestock being given over to game ranching. Elephants and lions are now worth more to landowners than cows and chickens.

Because a hunter like Walt Palmer is prepared to fly over and pay someone a large sum of money to kill a big, endangered critter, an economic opportunity attached to that critter is created. So, an enterprising individual will do anything from breeding to fostering to protecting and/or providing a habitat for a population of those critters. In order for that economic opportunity to last and for the investment to pay off, many more critters need to be added than the Walts of this world can ever kill. And because Walt and his pals want prime examples of that critter hanging on their trophy room walls, those critters need to be happy, healthy and wild. Yes, Walt will kill some of them, but many more will be able to go about their happy, healthy, wild lives as a result.

Yes, most of Walt’s spend does get pocketed by greedy capitalist types. But that’s the entire idea here. The greedy capitalist types are the ones earning a profit off the happy, healthy, wild population of critters. This isn’t some government boondoggle, it’s capitalism at its finest, creating employment and making the rich richer and all because they’ve got that happy, healthy population of critters.

How does the economic impact of hunting compare to tourism? After all, some tourists are paying to see animals, thereby giving them economic value too. In 2013, all tourism (not just people seeing animals) netted the South African economy $5.84 billion, which is a lot more money than hunting brings in.

But, that hunting is taking place in areas where tourists don’t often go. Game ranches have reached an equivalent total area to national parks in South Africa, effectively doubling the land on which large animals have to grow and roam.

Trophy hunting is also present in countries which do not otherwise have significant tourist economies, places like Ethiopia, Chad and the Central African Republic. Again providing economic incentive for the conservation of animals that otherwise might not exist in struggling economies and through political instability.

The average tourist in South Africa spends $64 a day on stuff like food and hotel rooms and transportation and maybe even tour of a national park. It costs a hunter up to $35,000 to kill a single lion in that country.

How does the economic benefit of hunting compare to money provided by charities? The World Wildlife Fund, for instance, spends $224 million a year, but that’s spread across the globe on programs including deforestation, habitat destruction and curbing carbon emissions. Some is spent on anti-poaching initiatives, but it does not equal the economic incentive for conservation in Africa that trophy hunting does.

Trophy hunting is also a powerful anti-poaching tool. If an animal is worth a large sum of money, the people invested in earning that money are motivated to prevent losses. This doesn’t help national parks, where hunting of any kind is forbidden, but it does prevent the illegal taking of protected species on private land.

Walt has been photographed with at least one lion kill, previous to the one that caused the current furor, as well as other animals native to Africa. It’s been reported that he paid up to $55,000 for this latest hunt. That’s at least $100,000 that he’s personally put into African economies, money that wouldn’t have been spent if there weren’t lions to hunt. That’s money which is a specific economic motivation for conservation. How much money have you and your Facebook friends contributed directly to big game conservation in Africa? I’m guessing that for most of you, it’s much, much less.

The 800lbs gorilla in the room here is obviously the allegedly illegal nature of Walt’s hunt. According to reports, the lion he killed was illegally lured out of a national park for the express purpose of the kill (without his knowledge, according to Walt) and the asshole made a bad shot, wounding rather than killing the lion, leading to nearly two days of suffering before another hunter put it out of its misery. All that seriously sucks and just adds layers of asshole to the already asshole act of killing a lion. But, in all this talk of bad Yelp reviews and doxxing and closed dental practices, I figured there should at least be some discussion of the conservation benefits trophy hunting like this does, in fact, bring to animals. All hunters should not be tarred by Walt’s brush.

Maybe instead of just tweeting with a hashtag, this encourages you to actually do something substantial for animal conservation, just like Walt Palmer has.

http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com...lmer-has-done-more-for-conservatio-1720901473

 

[laughing dog]

Many of the people are upset because this dentist killed a popular lion. In other words, if he had killed a nameless one, no one would have noticed.

Moreover, Cecil was a tourist attraction at the national park. It may be the case that his death will cause a net loss to Zimbabwe.

In addition, the method of hunting was unethical. Cecil was lured out of the national park by putting some game on the hood of a vehicle and driving out. Palmer used a crossbow to hit the lion.

While I understand that there potential economic benefits to local communities from trophy hunting, I think people who feel the need to kill animals for trophies (as opposed for food or to eliminate a danger) are rather twisted.

 

[Metaphor]

That’s at least $100,000 that he’s personally put into African economies, money that wouldn’t have been spent if there weren’t lions to hunt. That’s money which is a specific economic motivation for conservation. How much money have you and your Facebook friends contributed directly to big game conservation in Africa? I’m guessing that for most of you, it’s much, much less.

Walt did not 'contribute' $100,000 to conservation. He contributed $0 to conservation. He paid $100,000 for a service that enabled him to hunt and kill a specific animal.

If I bought a car from somebody and they donated that money to charity, I have not 'contributed' to that charity. I paid money for a car and I received a car.

 

[Axulus]

Many of the people are upset because this dentist killed a popular lion. In other words, if he had killed a nameless one, no one would have noticed.

Moreover, Cecil was a tourist attraction at the national park. It may be the case that his death will cause a net loss to Zimbabwe.

In addition, the method of hunting was unethical. Cecil was lured out of the national park by putting some game on the hood of a vehicle and driving out. Palmer used a crossbow to hit the lion.

While I understand that there potential economic benefits to local communities from trophy hunting, I think people who feel the need to kill animals for trophies (as opposed for food or to eliminate a danger) are rather twisted.

There's no question that there should be consequences for killing Cecil and that this particular hunt was rightly a crime that he should pay for - if you are going to hunt in Africa, you better make damn sure you aren't breaking the local laws and killing an animal now owed by another private party or, worse, part of the national collective. The broader point, however, is that legal hunting on private lands contributes to conservation efforts of threatened big game species by creating the incentives to protect them and breed them and set out land for them.

As far as hunting itself goes, when done legally, it is low on my list of concerns. How many animals die in slaughter houses every year? How many die in the combines of farm machinery when plants are harvested? How many deer and birds are hunted every year?

- - - Updated - - -

That’s at least $100,000 that he’s personally put into African economies, money that wouldn’t have been spent if there weren’t lions to hunt. That’s money which is a specific economic motivation for conservation. How much money have you and your Facebook friends contributed directly to big game conservation in Africa? I’m guessing that for most of you, it’s much, much less.

Walt did not 'contribute' $100,000 to conservation. He contributed $0 to conservation. He paid $100,000 for a service that enabled him to hunt and kill a specific animal.

If I bought a car from somebody and they donated that money to charity, I have not 'contributed' to that charity. I paid money for a car and I received a car.

But a big chunk of that $100,000 will go towards paying expenses, upkeep and breeding efforts for more such big game animals, multiplying their numbers and giving them more habitat to live in.

I agree that this isn't a direct contribution to conservation. However, those who claim that hunters like Palmer threaten such species are in error.

 

[Axulus]

This type of response seems counterproductive if your goal is to increase the numbers of these animals.

U.S. lawmakers joined the chorus of outrage over the killing of Cecil the lion on Friday, announcing a bill that would stop people from importing “trophies” gleaned from hunting potentially endangered animals.

http://time.com/3981032/cecil-lion-bill-trophy-hunters/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As far as hunting itself goes, when done legally, it is low on my list of concerns. How many animals die in slaughter houses every year? How many die in the combines of farm machinery when plants are harvested? How many deer and birds are hunted every year?

*explode*

Shit, now I have to clean off my laptop because my head exploded after reading someone comparing hunting non-endangered animals with endangered animals. How many non-endangered animals do we kill every year? So why not endangered, I mean as long as it is legal.

Poaching is not legal. It wouldn't be called poaching. People are complaining about poaching and you cut and paste about non-poaching. OI!!!

 

[laughing dog]

Dr. Palmer contributed nothing to conservation efforts this trip. He killed a lion from a national park, not a game preserve. So, this particular asshole on this particular safari spent no $ that will go towards conservation efforts.

Now, it is true that there are many more pressing problems in the world. I wish the same people would show the same intensity and persistency in outrage when a child is murdered or a police officer kills an unarmed suspect who is not dangerous. Or these people could turn their outrage to a more pressing conservation issue: elephants, who are being poached and encroached towards extinction.

 

[ZiprHead]

But a big chunk of that $100,000 will go towards paying expenses, upkeep and breeding efforts for more such big game animals, multiplying their numbers and giving them more habitat to live in.

I'd like a cite for that.

 

[Axulus]

As far as hunting itself goes, when done legally, it is low on my list of concerns. How many animals die in slaughter houses every year? How many die in the combines of farm machinery when plants are harvested? How many deer and birds are hunted every year?

*explode*

Shit, now I have to clean off my laptop because my head exploded after reading someone comparing hunting non-endangered animals with endangered animals. How many non-endangered animals do we kill every year? So why not endangered, I mean as long as it is legal.

Poaching is not legal. It wouldn't be called poaching. People are complaining about poaching and you cut and paste about non-poaching. OI!!!

Hence why I wasn't talking about poaching but legal hunting. It is legal to hunt lions and white rhino in some parts of Africa which, as the article pointed out, has led to substantial increases in the populations of these animals on private lands, all due to the large amount of financial resources that are directed towards sport hunting of these animals.

 

[Axulus]

But a big chunk of that $100,000 will go towards paying expenses, upkeep and breeding efforts for more such big game animals, multiplying their numbers and giving them more habitat to live in.

I'd like a cite for that.

Abstract:

After a short historical overview this paper shows the current status and characteristics of the trophy hunting
industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Trophy hunting is generally self-regulating because low off-take is required to ensure
high trophy quality and marketability in future seasons. Trophy hunting creates crucial financial incentives for the
development and/or retention of wildlife as a land use over large areas in Africa, including in areas where ecotourism is
not viable. Hunting plays an important role in the rehabilitation of degraded wildlife areas by enabling the income
generation from wildlife without affecting population growth of trophy species.

Furthermore, hunting operators often conduct anti-poaching to protect the wildlife resource on which they depend.
However, there are problems associated with trophy hunting from a conservation perspective. The article describes these
problems and outlines several potential solutions aimed at maximizing the conservation value of the industry.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/aj114e/aj114e09.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

Dr. Palmer contributed nothing to conservation efforts this trip. He killed a lion from a national park, not a game preserve. So, this particular asshole on this particular safari spent no $ that will go towards conservation efforts.

Agreed. However, the outrage isn't against killing this one lion. That's part of it. However, the bulk of the outrage is killing these types of animals in general for trophy purposes. Even those on private lands not lured away.

Now, it is true that there are many more pressing problems in the world. I wish the same people would show the same intensity and persistency in outrage when a child is murdered or a police officer kills an unarmed suspect who is not dangerous. Or these people could turn their outrage to a more pressing conservation issue: elephants, who are being poached and encroached towards extinction.

What do you think of the idea about allowing hunting of these elephants on private lands for a substantial fee from wealthy hunters as one part of the approach to increase their numbers (not the sole approach)? That would put significant financial incentives in place to create and protect habitat and increase their numbers so as to attract such hunters and the substantial money they would pay for the opportunity. It would also better incentive efforts against illegal poaching of these animals - people will spend resources needed to protect their valuable property against illegal killing/taking of it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*explode*

Shit, now I have to clean off my laptop because my head exploded after reading someone comparing hunting non-endangered animals with endangered animals. How many non-endangered animals do we kill every year? So why not endangered, I mean as long as it is legal.

Poaching is not legal. It wouldn't be called poaching. People are complaining about poaching and you cut and paste about non-poaching. OI!!!

Hence why I wasn't talking about poaching but legal hunting. It is legal to hunt lions and white rhino in some parts of Africa which, as the article pointed out, has led to substantial increases in the populations of these animals on private lands, all due to the large amount of financial resources that are directed towards sport hunting of these animals.

And the outrage is over poaching, but you can continue your passive aggressive contributions.

Personally I think large animal hunting should be legal. There should be a $25,000 permit to hunt one animal, and you have to do it all on your own. No tribesman to help you. No locals to get you in the right place. You have to go out into the wild and kill the animal as if you were actually fucking hunting them.

 

[Axulus]

Hence why I wasn't talking about poaching but legal hunting. It is legal to hunt lions and white rhino in some parts of Africa which, as the article pointed out, has led to substantial increases in the populations of these animals on private lands, all due to the large amount of financial resources that are directed towards sport hunting of these animals.

And the outrage is over poaching, but you can continue your passive aggressive contributions.

That is only a small part of the outrage. Most of the outrage is directed at big game trophy hunting in general, whether legal or not. Hence the federal bill introduced to make it illegal to import trophies (whether it was legal or not). You clearly haven't been following the story.

By the way, you throw out the "passive aggressive" phrase more than a horny 18-year old throws out dollar bills at the local strip joint.

Try looking up the definition lest you continue to make an ass of yourself:

Definition of PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE

: being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by the expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive passive way (as through procrastination and stubbornness)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passive-aggressive

 

[Cerberus]

Many of the people are upset because this dentist killed a popular lion. In other words, if he had killed a nameless one, no one would have noticed.

Moreover, Cecil was a tourist attraction at the national park. It may be the case that his death will cause a net loss to Zimbabwe.

In addition, the method of hunting was unethical. Cecil was lured out of the national park by putting some game on the hood of a vehicle and driving out. Palmer used a crossbow to hit the lion.

While I understand that there potential economic benefits to local communities from trophy hunting, I think people who feel the need to kill animals for trophies (as opposed for food or to eliminate a danger) are rather twisted.

I've been unable to find out what it was popular. I couldn't agree more with the last sentence though. It's 'the power thing' I suppose.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'd like a cite for that.

Abstract:

After a short historical overview this paper shows the current status and characteristics of the trophy hunting
industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Trophy hunting is generally self-regulating because low off-take is required to ensure
high trophy quality and marketability in future seasons. Trophy hunting creates crucial financial incentives for the
development and/or retention of wildlife as a land use over large areas in Africa, including in areas where ecotourism is
not viable. Hunting plays an important role in the rehabilitation of degraded wildlife areas by enabling the income
generation from wildlife without affecting population growth of trophy species.

Furthermore, hunting operators often conduct anti-poaching to protect the wildlife resource on which they depend.
However, there are problems associated with trophy hunting from a conservation perspective. The article describes these
problems and outlines several potential solutions aimed at maximizing the conservation value of the industry.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/aj114e/aj114e09.pdf

I was looking for data that says this dentist's money went to help preserve wildlife. All I can see is he paid someone to help him poach a treasured lion. I don't see where any of his money went toward preservation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Abstract:

After a short historical overview this paper shows the current status and characteristics of the trophy hunting
industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Trophy hunting is generally self-regulating because low off-take is required to ensure
high trophy quality and marketability in future seasons. Trophy hunting creates crucial financial incentives for the
development and/or retention of wildlife as a land use over large areas in Africa, including in areas where ecotourism is
not viable. Hunting plays an important role in the rehabilitation of degraded wildlife areas by enabling the income
generation from wildlife without affecting population growth of trophy species.

Furthermore, hunting operators often conduct anti-poaching to protect the wildlife resource on which they depend.
However, there are problems associated with trophy hunting from a conservation perspective. The article describes these
problems and outlines several potential solutions aimed at maximizing the conservation value of the industry.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/aj114e/aj114e09.pdf

I was looking for data that says this dentist's money went to help preserve wildlife. All I can see is he paid someone to help him poach a treasured lion. I don't see where any of his money went toward preservation.

Axulus is pretty much talking about a completely different thing than the actually thing that happened.

I want to say there was recently a raffle to kill a rhino. Those proceeds went towards conservation. The dentist, well, his money mostly went into the hands of criminals.

 

[ZiprHead]

That's what I suspect also. That's why I asked for a cite when he said this:

But a big chunk of that $100,000 will go towards paying expenses, upkeep and breeding efforts for more such big game animals, multiplying their numbers and giving them more habitat to live in.

 

[arkirk]

Today, trophy hunting takes place in 23 sub-Saharan African nations, generating over $200 million and attracting over 18,000 clients each year. That’s money spent in the economies of multiple African nations directly pegged to the continuing presence of big game animals. It’s a large economic incentive for conservation of these species. And it’s growing.

This chart, from a study conducted by the University of Pretoria, demonstrates the increased economic value of trophy hunting in southern Africa. The explosive growth in South Africa is largely due to ranch land that had been dedicated to livestock being given over to game ranching. Elephants and lions are now worth more to landowners than cows and chickens.

Because a hunter like Walt Palmer is prepared to fly over and pay someone a large sum of money to kill a big, endangered critter, an economic opportunity attached to that critter is created. So, an enterprising individual will do anything from breeding to fostering to protecting and/or providing a habitat for a population of those critters. In order for that economic opportunity to last and for the investment to pay off, many more critters need to be added than the Walts of this world can ever kill. And because Walt and his pals want prime examples of that critter hanging on their trophy room walls, those critters need to be happy, healthy and wild. Yes, Walt will kill some of them, but many more will be able to go about their happy, healthy, wild lives as a result.

Yes, most of Walt’s spend does get pocketed by greedy capitalist types. But that’s the entire idea here. The greedy capitalist types are the ones earning a profit off the happy, healthy, wild population of critters. This isn’t some government boondoggle, it’s capitalism at its finest, creating employment and making the rich richer and all because they’ve got that happy, healthy population of critters.

How does the economic impact of hunting compare to tourism? After all, some tourists are paying to see animals, thereby giving them economic value too. In 2013, all tourism (not just people seeing animals) netted the South African economy $5.84 billion, which is a lot more money than hunting brings in.

But, that hunting is taking place in areas where tourists don’t often go. Game ranches have reached an equivalent total area to national parks in South Africa, effectively doubling the land on which large animals have to grow and roam.

Trophy hunting is also present in countries which do not otherwise have significant tourist economies, places like Ethiopia, Chad and the Central African Republic. Again providing economic incentive for the conservation of animals that otherwise might not exist in struggling economies and through political instability.

The average tourist in South Africa spends $64 a day on stuff like food and hotel rooms and transportation and maybe even tour of a national park. It costs a hunter up to $35,000 to kill a single lion in that country.

How does the economic benefit of hunting compare to money provided by charities? The World Wildlife Fund, for instance, spends $224 million a year, but that’s spread across the globe on programs including deforestation, habitat destruction and curbing carbon emissions. Some is spent on anti-poaching initiatives, but it does not equal the economic incentive for conservation in Africa that trophy hunting does.

Trophy hunting is also a powerful anti-poaching tool. If an animal is worth a large sum of money, the people invested in earning that money are motivated to prevent losses. This doesn’t help national parks, where hunting of any kind is forbidden, but it does prevent the illegal taking of protected species on private land.

Walt has been photographed with at least one lion kill, previous to the one that caused the current furor, as well as other animals native to Africa. It’s been reported that he paid up to $55,000 for this latest hunt. That’s at least $100,000 that he’s personally put into African economies, money that wouldn’t have been spent if there weren’t lions to hunt. That’s money which is a specific economic motivation for conservation. How much money have you and your Facebook friends contributed directly to big game conservation in Africa? I’m guessing that for most of you, it’s much, much less.

The 800lbs gorilla in the room here is obviously the allegedly illegal nature of Walt’s hunt. According to reports, the lion he killed was illegally lured out of a national park for the express purpose of the kill (without his knowledge, according to Walt) and the asshole made a bad shot, wounding rather than killing the lion, leading to nearly two days of suffering before another hunter put it out of its misery. All that seriously sucks and just adds layers of asshole to the already asshole act of killing a lion. But, in all this talk of bad Yelp reviews and doxxing and closed dental practices, I figured there should at least be some discussion of the conservation benefits trophy hunting like this does, in fact, bring to animals. All hunters should not be tarred by Walt’s brush.

Maybe instead of just tweeting with a hashtag, this encourages you to actually do something substantial for animal conservation, just like Walt Palmer has.

http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com...lmer-has-done-more-for-conservatio-1720901473

Are you aware what a pittance $200M is to Africa as a whole? let alone any country where this hunting is done. WOW! That would buy every African about a single piece of bubblegum.

 

[RavenSky]

Trophy hunting:

In practice though, studies have shown that only about three per cent of these fees actually reaches the local communities. Most of the money is siphoned off by the hunting industry and government officials. Meanwhile, in the eight sub-Saharan countries that currently sell permits allowing hunters to target lions, the animals’ numbers are dwindling alarmingly. Only thirty-two thousand to thirty-five thousand lions are now believed to live in the wild, down thirty per cent over the past twenty years. The decimation of African savannah elephants and other big game species is more alarming still, suggesting that leaving the free market to protect endangered species is a fatal fallacy.

Eco-tourism:

Ecotourism has incentivized the neighboring communities to protect rather than poach the animals, much more effectively than the hunting permits. The Rwandan guides are trained and employed by the government. They are accompanied by local porters, some of whom are former poachers, who earn better wages than they would otherwise by helping the tourists navigate the difficult terrain. Tourists are only permitted to mingle with the gorillas for a total of an hour per day, in order to protect the animals’ privacy. And only a third of the total gorilla population is ever exposed to the human interlopers. Another third is studied by scientists, and the last third is left completely wild. Miraculously, even with these restrictions, the gorillas have become Rwanda’s No. 1 tourist attraction, and tourism is commonly said to be the country’s No. 1 industry. The ecotourism fees are paying for modern schools and electricity in the villages at the entrance to the national park where the gorillas live. And the gorilla population is growing.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/does-zimbabwe-really-need-trophy-hunting

 

[Axulus]

Ecotourism has incentivized the neighboring communities to protect rather than poach the animals, much more effectively than the hunting permits. The Rwandan guides are trained and employed by the government. They are accompanied by local porters, some of whom are former poachers, who earn better wages than they would otherwise by helping the tourists navigate the difficult terrain. Tourists are only permitted to mingle with the gorillas for a total of an hour per day, in order to protect the animals’ privacy. And only a third of the total gorilla population is ever exposed to the human interlopers. Another third is studied by scientists, and the last third is left completely wild. Miraculously, even with these restrictions, the gorillas have become Rwanda’s No. 1 tourist attraction, and tourism is commonly said to be the country’s No. 1 industry. The ecotourism fees are paying for modern schools and electricity in the villages at the entrance to the national park where the gorillas live. And the gorilla population is growing.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/does-zimbabwe-really-need-trophy-hunting

The ecotourism point was already addressed on the OP, but it is expanded upon here:

Trophy hunting generates revenues in areas where alternatives such as ecotourism may not be viable
Trophy hunting is viable in several countries that receive few conventional tourists (e.g. CAR, Chad, and
Ethiopia), and in remote parts of countries that are popular among tourists (e.g. northwest South Africa, and
southern Tanzania). In Botswana, 74% of the wildlife estate relies on revenues from consumptive wildlife
utilization. Hunting is able to generate revenues under a wider range of scenarios than ecotourism, including
remote areas lacking infrastructure, attractive scenery, or high densities of viewable wildlife, areas
experiencing political instability. Trophy hunting revenues are vital in part because there are not enough
tourists to generate income for all protected areas. Even in the most visited countries such as South Africa
and Tanzania, tourism revenues are typically sufficient to cover the costs of only some of the parks and
certainly not to justify wildlife as a land use outside of protected areas.

Furthermore, not all systems of trophy hunting are equal. South Africa is the best of breed example:

On private land in South Africa, for example,
trophy hunting has been vital in promoting the recovery of bontebok (Damaliscus dorcas), black
wildebeest (Connochaetes gnu) cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra) and white rhino by encouraging
reintroductions onto game ranches. Trophy hunting can also play an important role in the
rehabilitation of degraded wildlife areas (such as the Coutada hunting blocks in Mozambique) by
enabling the income generation from wildlife without affecting population growth of trophy
species.

Discussion of not doing it right here:

4.2 Problems with trophy hunting on state and communally owned land
Despite some successes, rural communities living in or near wildlife areas rarely benefit adequately from
trophy hunting activities. Inequitable distribution of hunting revenues represents the most serious threat to
the long term sustainability of the industry. Reasons for this inequity include; inadequate legislation
enforcing community involvement, failure of national governments to devolve wildlife ownership to
communities, and the lack of skills among communities required for them to run hunting operations or
negotiate improved terms with operators.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/aj114e/aj114e09.pdf

 

[barbos]

I think this asshole might have unintentionally saved white rhino. Next dentist may now wonder, is it worth to risk my practice and go shoot wild animals in Africa in order to satisfy my sadistic tendencies or fishing is just good enough?