Nom de Forum, what has been proven to be demonstrable fact is that money from hunters is the primary reason for stability or enhancement in populations of many game species. Other parties who care about wildlife have never invested anywhere near the amount of money that hunters have.
Agreed.
The photo-safari crowd's money goes mostly to the corporations who invest in facilities, transportation and maintenance. The only money available for wildlife from them can only come from after-tax profits.
Income from, say, a $30,000 group photo safari yields maybe a $3,000 pre-tax profit. It is common for half of a $30,000 trophy license to go to local villagers--plus the meat.
I don't dispute that.
This money creates a vested interest on the part of the villagers in regarding wildlife with approval and protecting it, rather than as pestiferous destroyers of crops and attackers of people and livestock. Hard for a poacher to "swim in the sea" of anti-poachers.
That does not eliminate the possibility finding funding that is even more effective in doing the same thing. Just because it has not happened does not mean it cannot happen.
Animal rights activists come predominantly from liberal/leftist groups who know little or nothing about the realities of hunting. (My own observation about people after many decades of watching is that the less somebody knows about a subject, the stronger his opinion. That holds for both Left and Right.) The amount of name-calling and even death threats are IMO absolutely appalling. Irrational and immature, to say the least.
I don’t disagree about the predominance and behaviors you mention, however the same can be said of conservative/rightest groups on other topics. Extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are much the same in the tactics they employ and lack of understanding of the realities of subjects.
To digress for a moment: Ingrid Newkirk came here from England to begin PETA in the U.S. She stated for the record, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." She wants to end all animal husbandry of whatever sort and end the possession of pets.
Wayne Pacelle founded HSUS, the Humane Society of the United States. His goal is stated publicly to be the end of all hunting and after that, the end of fishing.
Neither are concerned about the consequences of their success--or the cost of the necessary methodology to carry out all that if such laws were enacted.
From my vantage point of 81 years of age, I call them and their disciples irrational.
Neither of these extremists are representative of many people who oppose trophy hunting. In fact, many people who oppose trophy hunting have more beliefs in common with trophy hunters than Newkirk, Pacelle, and their “disciples”, including me. If trophy hunting was solely about hunting to remove the sick, the disabled, the over-populated, and individual animals that are a threat to life or destructive of property, I would not be taking so much of my time to express an opinion that results in receiving so much hostility and scorn. Trophy hunting is ultimately about killing the biggest and fittest specimens of a species (which is not the what natural selection does to preserve species) for personal pleasure and to garner prestige from like minded people. I support hunting for food harvest, and culling of over-populated and destructive species.
