Hunt Elephants to Save Them? Some Countries See No Other Choice

Exposing the Big Game

[New York Times does it again! With friends like them, what animal needs enemies?]

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service last month moved to allow hunters to bring home trophies from elephants killed in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Safe to say, few conservationists saw it coming.

In a 39-page report, the agency cited Zimbabwe’s progress in creating a sound management plan for its 82,000 elephants and evidence that hunting revenue is in fact reinvested into conservation. Well-managed trophy hunting “would not have an adverse effect on the species, but can further efforts to conserve the species in the wild,” the agency concluded.

The announcement, which would have turned back an elephant-trophy prohibition instituted during the Obama administration, was met with praise from pro-hunting groups, like the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International, and criticism from animal-rights advocates on all sides of the political spectrum.

Unexpectedly, President Trump intervened on…

View original post 2,147 more words

10 thoughts on “Hunt Elephants to Save Them? Some Countries See No Other Choice

  1. Ivory demand is fueling the extinction of elephants and rhinos in the wild, as well as the usual anti wildlife forces of ranching, farming, development, recreational killing (aka trophy hunting). Trophy hunters are now rationalizing killing animals for trophies by the rich to protect the larger population in limited hunting. It is a perverse argument often presented by hunters, that they are conservationists, who also tout the economic benefits to states, locals countries of hunting. I would argue that hunters, ranchers, and hunting wildlife agencies lead the war against wildlife with loss of habitat caused by development and extraction.

    The facts are stark: More than 20,000 African elephants were slaughtered last year alone. And rhino poaching rose by 9,000% in just eight years. NRDC 2016

  2. Wildlife viewing is more valuable than wildlife killing, and healthier for man and the wild. Regarding the claim by trophy hunters about the economic benefit to African economies (hunter rationalization mythology) of their “sport”, trophy hunting contributes no more than (.27%) of GDP and no more than 1,8% of tourism. Wildlife viewing safaris is far better for economies and wildlife.

    Trophy hunters, such as in Africa, argue that the revenues from trophy hunting can aid conservation of the hunting targets by native tolerance because they are seen as valuable, by conservation action, by revenue for locals. However, trophy hunting is still recreational wildlife killing and doing it begets an continuance of wildlife killing. It still leads to game farming. It has been found that generated revenue does not lead to much if any conservation.

  3. My sister-in-law went to Africa this past January cost $11,000 and she’s going back in June 2018 to see the gorillas. They’re making plenty of money off of the tourist, yes they had to put the fancier buildings up but they aren’t that fancy and they were filled with tourists.

  4. [New York Times does it again! With friends like them, what animal needs enemies?]

    That’s for sure! The media just doesn’t seem to get it many times. Why do they keep promoting these untruths? They abuse their significant influence on their readers. They’ll get a barrage of critical comments – but the story carries more weight with the public.

  5. I wish we could see statistics or studies (if any exist) of how trophy hunting encourages poaching because there is so much money to be made. This is what happened with Cecil, baiting him out of the park. I’d like the news media to print them.

    This is also why no wolf hunter deserves ‘sympathy’ or respect when they bait animals out of the Parks and deprive the public of seeing them because of their own selfishness. If they would leave the collared animals alone, people might see things differently – but they refuse to, and they think they are entitled to them, and the non-hunting public is not! I am not optimistic at all that the same thing won’t happen to grizzlies.

  6. You notice that the NYT didn’t bring up the ethics of killing collared wildlife. If hunters would cooperate with scientists instead of dismissing science, and not take collared wildlife, they might meet with a different attitude. Entitlement does not impress.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s