Global efforts - the US and other nations are willing to spend fortunes on stupid programs, equipment, etc. If we spent our budget rounding errors on a military presence there, send a Battalion or Brigade from AFRICOM up to monitor and guard these herds of elephants, giraffes, lions, etc, that would be the best solution to the problem. Send up a handful of drones to monitor, record, report over these herds... An aggressive multi-national posture from US and other nations including African Soldiers to protect these herds.
Why do that? With a properly administered sport hunting program, you can get hunters to voluntarily pay for all that. Furthermore, because it gives the animals commercial value, there are people whose livelihoods directly depend on the animals who will aid in enforcement. Also, some of the less involved people who might have formerly poached, aided poachers or turned a blind eye will now actually provide anti-poaching assistance because they benefit in one way or another from the hunting.
There's no need to reinvent the wheel. There's already an effective solution available. It costs nothing--in fact it generates its own revenue.
It would be colossally stupid to pay to have something done when there are those who will pay for the privilege and pay so much that you can fund additional conservation efforts from the surplus.
I understand the argument about culling the weak, injured, etc. But nobody is paying game tickets to kill a diseased elephant laying on the ground waiting to die.
This is a strawman. Nobody is claiming that sport hunting is all about shooting sick animals lying on the ground. It is true that sometimes sick or dying animals are taken on license, but that's not the norm.
They are killing the strong healthy trophy ones.
Trophy animals are typically older animals, generally past breeding age and often so old that their expected remaining lifespan is quite short. That doesn't mean they're decrepit or sick and lying on the ground but their age (and other factors) does mean that they can be taken without an adverse effect on the population.
If a person were truly interested in conserving a struggling species, it is totally illogical to kill healthy members of that population.
You said this before. It's no more true this time than the last time you said it. Simply repeating a false statement over and over won't make it true.
First of all, part of maintaining a healthy population is insuring that the population levels are commensurate with the size of the habitat. That can include culling healthy animals, but even if that's not necessary, a reasonable number of animals past breeding age can be taken without a negative effect on the population level. They can be allowed to live out their remaining few months, die (typically of starvation) and be wasted or they can be turned into a resource that benefits their species and many humans as well.
It's totally intellectually dishonest to say that someone is paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to "cull" the dying one in the herd, and to pretend this is all to save the species.
Killing dying animals does happen from time to time, but as mentioned, it's not the norm. As far as hunting animals to save the species, it is perfectly honest and completely factual to point out that properly managed sport hunting is a very effective way to maintain the population of a species.
You don't kill healthy xyz for to help anything.
That's obviously incorrect.
1. Since habitat is not unlimited, the population must be controlled. Population control is beneficial to the species.
2. By creating a valuable financial resource through the taking of a few animals via legal sport hunting, the entire species in the area benefits from the fact that there are many stakeholders invested in the animals who wish to protect them.
You kill ... for your own needs/pleasure.
As I mentioned in a previous post, people obviously enjoy hunting or they would not pay for the privilege but that does not mean that they don't want to preserve the species. They can want both and many (probably nearly all) do.
It is fortunate for all involved that a system has been devised by which people can both satisfy their desire to hunt AND support the species they wish to hunt.
What I gather from your statements is that you don't approve of sport hunting--not because it doesn't accomplish goals that you claim to support but because you have a fundamental problem with the idea of someone killing an animal when they don't have to do so. That's fine. I'm sure there are others who share your views.
I do hope that they are not so blinded by emotion that they can't see the concrete benefits that legal and properly managed sport hunting provides. To do away with such an effective program in the name of conservation is truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Your opinions are not based on fact or logic. The statements you have made are inconsistent with the facts and can be picked apart with simple logic. The alternative is that you are arguing based on your feelings/beliefs/emotions. It is true that everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but it is also true that not all opinions can be supported with hard data. Sadly, yours is a good example of the latter.
