Good. Fuck hunters. I have zero respect for these people.
This is not a shitpost.
Indeed. It’s Wholesome.
I find this discussion really interesting.
The other night i watched Loius Theroux’s African Hunting Party documentary where he goes to Africa and interviews Americans who pay big money to kill wild animals. Some of them endangered i believe. The money made from it goes into conservation to ensure these species are kept alive to keep the whole thing going.
I remember years ago there was a guy who killed a rhino on one of these hunts. People went mental about it. Turns out that rhino was killing baby rhinos and was itself depopulating the already small population of rhino. He paid $350,000 to do it too. Radiolab did a great episode on it here
I have been a vegetarian for the last 15 or so years. I doubt i will ever eat meat again and i most certainly will not eat factory farmed meat every again. In the film, the hunters ask the question “is this worst than buying meat from the supermarket?”. Honestly, i dont think it is, the virtually live in freedom untill they are killed. The conditions of factory farmed animals is much much worse. Im not likely to pick up a gun and start hunting myself anytime soon (unless its a pest) but i thought its an interesting conversation to have.
Thanks for mentioning factory farming. These sort of posts always highlight the cognitive dissonance of “the animal loving meat eater”. As bad as trophy hunting is, it doesn’t compare to what the meat and dairy industry does to sentient beings on a daily basis.
on the other hand, this small clique of billionaires who think that their money allows them to do whatever they want, including killing protected animals, regardless of ethics and laws, makes me really uncomfortable.
Yeah I totally agree with you. I’m just saying that problem is not specific to hunting animals. Wealth inequality finds its way into most parts of life. But yeah I’m with you
As someone who eats meat every day and i agree, farm animals should not exist. Let them roam free, i can eat meat twice a week.
That rich dude could have captured and relocated the rhino to a wild life sanctuary instead and donated the money.
And you could volunteer at the homeles shelter.
The way these things work, is that the people working in these places identify problem animals, like infertile males that prevent the herd, or pack or pride or what ever growing, unusually agressive animals, animals with genetic faults that could be hereditary etc etc. Basically anything that could hinder the the population of the endangered or vulnerable species. These animals are hard or impossible to relocate because most places dont want to take these problem animals in, because they generaly are bad where ever they are. I mean what zoo wants lion that kills anything they see or what animal sanctuary wants rhino that kills anything it can catch?
The park rangers could very easily kill the animals them self, but running these animal sanctuarys is very expensive so its better if they find some rich dude that is willing to pay ridicilous amount of money to do it for them.
The rich dude them self isint necessary a philantropist, but the money they spend goes to local economy and is often used for things like security against poachers, vetenarians and infrastructure.
Its easy to think that killing any exotic big game is always bad, but in reality the targets are always chosen carefully.
I don’t give a shit how it works. Because of this a-hole there’s one less Rhino in the world. There’s other things they could do instead of killing it. Capture it and send it to a zoo or something. I don’t care if he paid a million dollars, it’s still bullshit.
The guillotine blade is sometimes as blunt as an elephants foot.
Good riddance!
Oh wonderful. Council of Big Elephant 🐘
Lol, animals are starting the revolution because Americans won’t.
wait a minute, we were told to wait until Bosnia and Herzegovina started.
Lol, idiots talking out of their ass because they know nothing about anything
Most of the world is well informed, Americans not so much.
Burn in hell cunt !
Come one guys, that dude was a father and a brother and a son and a husband .
It’s a shame his family wasn’t there too.
CITIZEN SNIPS!
Also, bulls started winning
So the bull says “Rectum? I nearly killed him!”
The frogs are okay with it.
Bravo elephants! I’m surprised it was not a herd of hippos. If there’s a video of this fine event, please release it.
Turnabout is fair play
Although many disagree with big game hunting all Ernie’s hunts were strictly licensed and above board and were registered as conservation in culling animal numbers
Nothing here really indicates that the guy was a bad person, other than some vague categorizations like “he was rich” or “he was a hunter”.
I can’t say anything about his deeds or misdeeds as a rich guy. But I feel like there should be some context added about big game hunters - namely, that they are important to conservation efforts.
Sport hunters realized probably 100 years ago that unchecked hunting of their quarry would soon lead to the extinction of such species, and thus, the extinction of their sport. Hence, they were a big part of the early conservation efforts of the early 20th century, and typically continue to be big (and organized) advocates of conservation efforts today - supporting the protection of ecosystems and public lands.
Of course, this isn’t to say hunters, as individuals or as a group, are without their flaws. You would likely find more than a few climate skeptics in their ranks. But it seems to me that someone who goes out to interact with nature regularly would be a far more sympathetic ear to being swayed than their cousin Jim Bob who just sits on the couch all day watching Fox News.
In particular, there seems to be an idea that hunters are some sort of bloodthirsty killers. But most hunters will explain that they do a lot to limit animal suffering by lining up precise shots and using bullets or arrows designed to kill as quickly as possible. While most hunting done in developed nations these days is done for sport, the hunters do still eat the meat, and they are quick to point out that this is probably the most ethical way to get meat - from an animal who was able to live a good life in a natural habitat, and which then died instantly. Far better than the cow which lived its whole life in a tiny feed lot up to its knees in shit before it was turned into a hamburger. And if you ask them why they hunt, they will talk about spending time in nature, spending time with friends, and feeling like they are taking part in the circle of life in a way humans have been since we roamed the African savannah.
And on a practical level - almost every natural area in the world needs hunters in order to control animal populations. In most areas, apex predators have been brought to near extinction by a number of factors - mostly the destruction of large contiguous areas of habitat for the purposes of farming. The result is an explosion in the population of prey species, which will then have negative impacts on the environment as a whole by overpopulating and overfeeding. Thus there is a need to regularly cull herds. We could pay land managers to do this themselves, of course. But why do that when there is a population of sport hunters willing to pay to do the job for you?
Which brings us to big game hunting in Africa. Africa, you may have heard, is poor. While conditions are improving, Africa remains one of the biggest hotbeds of world poverty, and it is currently undergoing a massive population boom. And adjacent to these populations of desperately poor people, you have the last strongholds of some of the most incredible species on Earth. I have a friend who regularly travels to Africa to help with a small NGO he is affiliated with. As he tells it, the attitude of the average local is “I think they should kill all the lions. They eat people.” They think the land would be better used for more farms or more housing, and see poachers as just doing some honest work. African governments are similarly not very interested in protecting these natural habitats - the more democratic ones are typically mostly focused on getting people food, water, shelter, and healthcare on an extremely meager budget. And the more autocratic ones are concerned with pleasing the multinational corporations exploiting their land and quelling populist uprisings. Both the people and the governments must be given a reason to care about preserving their natural environments. An Economic reason. The cold, hard truth is that if you want to save the elephants, you must show the people who control the land that having elephants will make them more money than not having elephants.
Enter: big game hunters. The preserves, of course, get some funding from NGOs and normal ecotourism safaris. But more money is more better, and big game hunters come with money. African preserves face the same challenges as wildland areas in the rest of the world, as apex predator populations dwindle, prey populations increase to untenable levels. They must be culled somehow, so why not let someone pay you for the opportunity? Meanwhile, the apex predators and megafauna themselves will all die eventually. And what is the fate of an aging lion with an arthritic limp? To slowly starve to death, until he is too weak to fend off the hyenas that will tear the flesh from his bones while he is still alive? Auctioning off a hunting license for a dying lion will both shorten the animal’s suffering and result in a big payday for the preserve so they can pay to protect all the other lions from poachers.
The great irony being that whenever we see a news story about big game hunting, the comments inevitably cast the hunter as the villian - when instead, they are an active participant in preserving endangered species and limiting animal suffering. Is this exactly the world we would all like to see? No, not really. But solving problems of shrinking habitats and worldwide poverty will take a while, and protecting endangered species with big game hunters’ deep pockets is a pretty good solution right now.
I know what you’re saying is true. But my gut tells me the whole thing is still suspect.
Imagine it this way. Libraries have a lot of books, and to make room for new, popular titles, they have to get rid of old books which haven’t been checked out in years.
Enter a book enthusiast. Say what you will about him, or why he’s here. He enjoys spending time around knowledge. He hangs out with his friends here. But his role in this library is that he pays for the pleasure of burning the designated books. He pays a pretty penny for the privilege of setting a book on fire. His money is important to keeping the library running.
Do I recognize his place within the library system? I guess. Do I want to be his friend? Hell no.
There’s one huge caveat to your almost valid points. The vast majority of trophy hunting money doesn’t go to the local population.
I mean, I never said it did. I said that money from trophy hunting promotes conservation.
The source you linked seems to have its own bias, in that it promotes Compassionate Conservation, which is more of an ideological argument than a conservation-minded one. I don’t have a problem with taking an ideological stance here, but I think it should be recognized as such. And it seems to me that this organization is telling some half truths in the service of its ideological goals.
For example, the headline of the article is that trophy hunting money is not reinvested in communities. But to me, this is moving the goalposts. If the goal is to preserve lions and elephants and their natural habitat, then it is great if we can do that while also investing in local communities. But if the money flows into the pocket of some local corrupt bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat then posts guards to protect the animals from poachers and doesn’t sell the land to local farmers, then the goal of protecting the lions and elephants has been achieved. This is why I specified that we must make economic appeals to the people who control the land - which is not necessarily the general public. It is also why I specified that we do not live in an ideal world. If the idea of funding a corrupt bureaucrat while the locals around the preserve remain impoverished turns your gut… well, yeah. The world is full of injustices. We can definitely say it would be better if these people benefitted economically - but we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Demanding that every single problem in the world be solved all at once while sitting on our couches in wealthy western nations is most likely not a great strategy for achieving any goal.
Later, the article states that an elephant is worth more over its lifetime for tourists to see and photograph than it is worth as a trophy hunt. Which would be compelling if preserves were issuing hunting licenses on random elephants. But as far as I have heard, they don’t do this. The impression I get is that most preserves have strong ties to foreign NGOs which provide both a lot of funding and a lot of oversight. And then of course the preserves themselves know that the elephants being in a lot of tourist dollars by being alive. So of course they aren’t going to issue licenses to hunt young, healthy elephants. As far as I am aware, the licenses for hunting species like elephats are issued to individuals to allow them to hunt a single, specific animal which is sick, injured, or otherwise dying. From an economic standpoint, the animal has already provided the full benefit it would provide to the park for safari/photography money, and now the best use of the elephant is for trophy hunting money. And, again, from a humanitarian view, the elephant is being saved from a slow, painful, and often gruesome death.
So if you want to make an ideological argument against hunting, go ahead and make it. But the arguments presented by your source seem disingenuous to me.
You know they could just donate money and not kill animals right? It’s psycho to have killing be your hobby
elephants are also pretty much enderaged, the forest elephant even moreso. they have verys low reproduction, like 22months to give birth.
Hunting old or sick animal that cant reproduct does not effect that.
Hunting unstable animal that kills younglins of other males only helps with this.
In this view, I’d like to ask whether it is also psycho to buy dead animals in plastic from the grocery store, bring them home and cook and eat them.
And if I may draw a parallel: “those benefactors could just donate money, why do they need a gala?“ It’s so much easier to part us from our money when we have some little reason or tangible thing (like donor gifts from public radio).
For this big group who is all us humans, “everyone could …” prob can’t compete with “IF you do, then reward”.
—
Heart: with you!
Logical brain: “wait but the utilitarian perspective…! Minimize total suffering regardless of personal emotional discomfort!” :) (practical implication perhaps that campaign to get those hunters to keep donating but stop killing would be counterproductive to animals?? IDK how it’d pencil out!)
Well of course. But some people want to hunt, and that desire can be the thing that tips the scale for them to get them to plunk down the money. Its the same reason NPR gives you a tote bag when you donate to them - people can carry noble intentions in their hearts, but they carry selfishness too. Effective fundraising targets both.
And again, they are only killing animals which are already dying (as far as I know). Preserves keep track of the health of their lions and elephants and other large, popular animals. If a lion is on the verge of death, the preserve has 2 choices - watch it starve to death and get eaten by hyenas; or pop it with a rifle and kill it instantly. And if a rich white guy wants to pull the trigger in exchange for a pile of cash? Great.
Colonial mindset is strong in this comment. Africans are poor (wonder why?), and kept poor by western elites. Kept in a condition where they have to prioritize eating before conservation. So the same elites who keep them poor, need to come in and give the people a “reason to care about preserving their natural environments”, not by helping the society, but by killing big game for money so they can pose with their trophies.
Also, big game hunters are not bloodthirsty killers, they pay millions to kill animals not for bragging rights, but to help conservation. Just ask Don Jr. They even do a lot to minimize the suffering of the animal, out of the goodness of their hearts apparently, and not because that’s a basic rule of hunting that you have to follow if you wanna keep hunting. Those dumb Africans need sensible hunters to teach them about conservation, don’t you know?
I’ll respond earnestly, even if my comment won’t be taken that way.
The point of view I try to adopt is not about who is to blame, but what should be done.
Kept in a condition where they have to prioritize eating before conservation.
Suppose we murder all the evil western capitalist elites keeping them in poverty. Now what? There are still millions of people who cannot be supported by the land via a hunter-gatherer or subsistence farming lifestyle. As Smith wrote more than 100 years ago in The Wealth of Nations, a nation and its people do not gain wealth by extracting things from the ground, but by adopting technological innovations and creating lasting institutions. These things take time. And during that time, the impoverished will still see poaching elephant tusks as a good way to bring their family out of poverty. So what do we do? Well, we protect the elephants until the population is not so impoverished that they gain an appreciation for elephants beyond their economic value.
Meanwhile, the people working at the western NGOs which do a lot of the funding of these preserves (and which have done and continue to do a lot of the work to being average Africans out of poverty) do indeed care a lot about not taking a colonialist stance. But a common problem they run into is corruption. Whether you are digging wells or building hospitals or saving the lions, it is common that any given official at any given level will step in to take their cut. While NGOs will do their best to avoid these losses, they are inevitable to a certain extent. And trying to circumvent or oust government officials would be very, very colonial.
So the NGOs play ball, and generally try to find common ground with the governments and the preserves. Of course, not all Africans are poor and nature-ambivalent, just as not all westerners are colonizers. And typically, the Africans involved with the preserves do care about protecting the animals and ecosystems in them quite a bit. And importantly, the preserves are the ones issuing the hunting permits. The locals who direct, organize, and run the preserves on a day to day basis have determined that from the position they are in right now, yes, they do want to issue these hunting permits. So challenging this issuance seems somewhat colonialist to me.
Also, big game hunters are not bloodthirsty killers, they pay millions to kill animals not for bragging rights, but to help conservation.
No population is a monolith, and people can have multiple reasons for doing what they do. Talk to a hunter in an open minded way about the last hunt they went on, and they will give you any number of reasons they enjoyed it - exercise, fresh air, camaraderie. But also possibly the thrill of the moment they successfully took the shot, and the pride they feel about the trophy they took home. Still, I don’t think this necessarily makes any individual a bad person - hunting is a ritual humans have engaged in since before we were human. And hunting has long been not only a necessity, but a mark of status in indigenous tribes around the world for millenia. Should we also cast an indigenous person who specifically pursues the largest and most dangerous boar near his villiage, so he can boast about his kill and wear its tusks as a necklace, as an evil, frothing, bloodthirsty killer?
Just ask Don Jr.
He also plays golf, combs his hair, and breathes air. The association isn’t a ding against your doctor, who also golfs.
They even do a lot to minimize the suffering of the animal, out of the goodness of their hearts apparently, and not because that’s a basic rule of hunting that you have to follow if you wanna keep hunting.
This is a norm enforced by… other hunters… Who else would enforce it? It isnt hard to go into the woods and shoot an animal in the leg and then torture it to death if you feel like it. There’s not a game warden hiding behind every tree in the forest. Really, the fact that all hunters know about this norm seems like a point in their favor.
Those dumb Africans need sensible hunters to teach them about conservation, don’t you know?
Well, no. The pragmatic and conservation-minded Africans reached a mutually beneficial agreement with the hunters to help fund their preserve, to protect the species there against the actions other Africans might take due to the pressures of poverty, which is a difficult and complex issue to deal with, but in which both Africans and foreign governments and NGOs have been making slow - but steady - progress on for the last half century.
Adam Smith was a fiction writer, not a scientist.
No, you’re a fiction writer!
“We wiped out the apex predators so now we have to be the apex predators” is an…interesting take on justifying trophy hunting.
You could just fund conservation for animals like lions and hyenas in the savanna, and other predators in other environments. It’s better overall, see the effects of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone.
I mean, this is a broad justification in favor of trophy hunting that applies to bucks in New Jersey as well as it does to antelope on the savanna. I’m not saying we shouldn’t fund and support the reintroduction of apex predators. But, like, it’s complicated.
One of the biggest hurdles is that typically the rural people living in these areas don’t want these predators reintroduced. “Lions eat people” is a very reasonable concern in Africa. Ranchers in Wyoming hate wolves because the wolves will hunt their sheep and cows (though research has shown that this fear is typically overblown). And reintroducing apex predators into areas with a large and porus rural-urban interface (like New Jersey) would create a lot of problems for both residents and the predators themselves. As an example, a small rural town near me has had a rash of mountain lion attacks in the past few years, where the mountain lions would kill peoples dogs when let out in their back yards.
We had a bill proposed in the last few years in Colorado to reintroduce wolves. I was surprised when my friend who is a wildlife ecologist was opposed to it. “Some dumbass tourist is going to try to pet them, get killed, and set the public perception of wolves back 100 years - we need to increase reintroduction efforts along contiguous wildlife corridors in sparsely populated areas, not just where voters are the most liberal.”
So, like, it’s a good idea. But it will take a lot of time and effort, and faces significant political challenges. And in the meantime, we already have a functioning system of hunting for population control.
tourists tried to pet bison and got gored, and in asia, someone tried to pet a snow leopard and got mauled.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, killing animals is conservation.
Incredible comment and covered a lot of my personal journey from “hunters are slack-jawed idiots” to “oh shit, hunters have been thinking about conservation for a while”.
If you take a minute to think about it, of course hunters would be interested in preservation. They want a place to hunt and things to hunt. There will always also be the douchebag manosphere style people that just want the biggest sport kill.
Fantastic comment, too bad not enough will read it. The bloodthirsty need their excuse to celebrate killing people they dislike
i’m for killing dollar millionaires no matter the context tbh
