|
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Without wanting to pay to read the whole thing, it sounds like there's both positives and negatives to the idea of conserving animals for the purposes of killing them. Who'da thunk it.
I'm just going to assume it is probably going to reference the 1977 trophy hunting ban in Kenya. If you put your horse blinkers on, you could look at that and go: Omg, if I don't shoot that elephant, I'm killing it! So you would expect that after the 2014 trophy hunting ban in Botswana, it would have the same outcome, but then you remember Botswana's wildlife tourism industry is roughly 1000x it's trophy hunting industry.
But whatever arguments you could find for very limited cases, this:
An increase in desire for trophies increases the desire for the animals, thereby incentivizing increasing and protecting the populations. A ban has an antithetical effect: reducing the desire for trophies, reducing the desire for the animals, and reducing the desire to increase and protect the populations.
is still just as wrong, as evidenced by the hundreds of species that were hunted to or near extinction with no hunting bans to somehow accelerate their demise.
|