It may sound odd that by killing a few we can save many, but it IS working!
Trophy hunting. Just uttering those two words during a conversation is bound to liven things up a bit. Many people have very passionate opinions concerning trophy hunting, both positive and negative. The concept even engenders debate and division within the hunting community.
But if we can set aside the emotion that the subject of trophy hunting typically elicits, we will see that trophy hunting is in fact a sound and effective conservation and wildlife management tool. The evidence is becoming increasingly convincing that, as counterintuitive as it may seem, allowing a few animals to be hunted does indeed benefit the larger population and the protection and long-term viability of a species.
In a nutshell, here’s how it works (we’ll break down each of these components in a moment):
- The wildlife management and conservation programs that are vital to protect and otherwise benefit exotic big game animals (and by extension, the other animals in the ecosystems inhabited by big game) require money to operate.
- Funding for those wildlife management operations is, for many countries, an ongoing and, at times, losing struggle.
- Wildlife management program scientists and biologists have determined that a small number of specific animals in a population can and/or should be removed each year for the benefit of the health of the larger population.
- Trophy hunters are willing and able to step in and contribute to solving both issues by providing operating funds and removing problem or surplus animals.
Let’s quickly look at each of the components in this simplistic, though accurate, breakdown.
1. Wildlife management programs require a lot of money to remain active and effective. Money is needed for equipment, technology, infrastructure, utilities and other support systems, personnel support and people’s salaries – the stuff that any agency or business needs to stay in business. (And bear in mind that wildlife management and anti-poaching programs are not in the business of selling widgets or a market item.)
Their business is to spend money to increase their effectiveness in protecting and enhancing habitat and wildlife.
2. It’s difficult to say how much money is consumed by all of the various animal protection and conservation programs around the world, but it’s safe to say that it’s an astronomical figure.
For example, last year in South Africa alone the government earmarked $7 million inextra funding to increase anti-poaching security measures in its national parks. It also engaged municipal police and military forces to assist in protecting threatened wildlife. And those measures are still not sufficient to prevent the rise in poaching, let alone doing things to increase and improve habitat. Last year, 22,000 elephants were killed by poachers in South Africa.
The Save the Rhino conservation and rhino protection organization gives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to various rhino protection agencies. And it’s still not enough to stem the tide of poaching losses.
3. Wildlife scientists and biologists closely monitor big game animals under their charge, both as individual animals and the population as a whole. It is often the case concerning big game animals like rhinos or bull elephants, that older males that are nearing the end of their viable reproductive lives may become violent and dangerous to other members of the herd or population. Older males have been known to injure and even kill younger males, females and calves.
Their removal is beneficial for the safety of the larger population. A few are relocated to zoos and the like, but there aren’t enough zoos or shelters able or willing to receive and care for animals that are already determined to be dangerous. Wildlife management agencies themselves have the power to remove by extermination such animals, and they do when no other options are available.
Namibian biologists, for example, have determined that up to five rhinos per year may be removed without harming the health and growth of their rhino population. That doesn’t mean that they do actually remove five animals each year, simply that that has been scientifically determined to be an acceptable number, of which certain animals of that number are necessary to remove for the reasons stated above.
Read more: wideopenspaces.com
- LMAO: Watch Nancy Pelosi’s Face at the Moment Trump Said, an ‘Imploding Obamacare Disaster’
- REVEALED: Secret Tape of Woman Being Bribed to Accuse Trump of Sexual Harassment
- Off-Duty Officer Pulls Gun & Fires During Altercation with Group of Teens — Should He Be Punished?
- CNN Reporter SHAMES 12yr-Old Girls for Not Wanting to See ‘Penises’ in Their Locker Rooms — Preaches Tolerance for…
- WATCH: Little Brother ‘Rescues’ Big Sister from a Fight
- Arkansas Might Remove the Clinton’s Name from Their Airport — Should They Do It?
- Yassmin Abdel-Magied Claims ‘Islam is The MOST Feminist Religion’
- Dear Idiot NYT Writer: Here are THREE Provable Instances of Americans Protecting Their Liberty with Guns
- WATCH: Female ISIS Captives Remove Their Veils and BURN Them
- Family of NYC Terrorist Speak Out — They are ‘Outraged’ by NY Police
- ALLAH ADIOS! Muslim Migrants FINALLY Get Deported from US Under Trump Admin
- Vegetarians Receive Bad News as Scientists Reveal SHOCKING New Discovery About Plants
- Theresa May Targeted by Islamist Terrorists, Less Than a Week After Criticizing Trump
- LMAO! Amy Schumer’s Stand-Up Special BOMBED so Bad Netflix Had to Change Their Ratings Format
- [email protected]: Frozen 1911 is SHOT — Slow Motion Video Shows EXACTLY What Happens [WATCH]
- Republicans Divided Over Latest Legislation to Repeal and Replace Obamacare
- Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz: Liberals Searching for ‘Crimes That Don’t Exist’
- GROSS: Michelle Tells Crowd She’s A Sex Symbol — And It Blows Up In Her Face