Brotherbadger
New member
That said, I am appalled and disgusted by all sorts of sport hunting, particularly for rare or endangered creatures.
First off, the Panthera Leo is not classified as endangered, or rare. It is considered "Vulnerable". While this may not seem like a difference, it actually is. It means that the animal is not currently at risk for extinction in the wild, while Endangered means it is at a high risk for extinction.
People can pat themselves on the back by hunting to contribute to the overall preservation. I don't know how I feel about that. I would prefer if these were just protected all together and allowed to live unmolested.
Hunting on a whole is not even close to the greatest threat to the Lion population. It is ranked 6th behind Housing and Urban Development, Shifting agriculture, Small-holder farming, Nomadic Grazing and Small-holder grazing. While eliminating hunting would help, it would not come close to reversing the decline of the population. To do that, wholesale changes in the native countries needs to come about. I agree it would be best to allow the numbers to climb to normal numbers, however the vast majority of the Lions being killed for "Sport" are ones that are old(not all, unfortunetly, but a majority all the same) and cannot hunt natural pray. These lions instead go for livestock around their habitat. I guess it comes down to who do we protect first, the livelihood of the farmer, or the life of the old lion?
There is a real psychological problem with killing something for the pure sake of killing it. It is one of a million examples of the decay of our hollow society and values. I cannot imagine taking ANY pleasure in ending the life of a creature unnecessarily, whether it's a house mouse, a snake in the yard, a gopher, a dog, a deer, an elk or an elephant.
I am completely against the killing of animals for sport, but i also subscribe to the theory that it is not my place to judge what someone does, as long as it is legal. Many people think killing an animal, even for food should not be allowed. They feel anyone who hunts or fishes is a sociopath who should be jailed. Are they in the right? Not in my opinion.
Only humans can take land and encroach on the animals that have been there since the dawn of time, and then justify murdering them for sport, income, 'self defense,' etc. wholesale right down to extinction. Shameful. And killing for sport must be some sort of deranged mentality.
Humans have been living in the Lion's habitat for thousands of years now. The difference is we now have to balance how our lives are encroaching on their ability to live. This is a reasonably new phenomenon that we are still learning how to manage.
People who are 'for' sport trophy hunting can come up with all sorts of 'feel good' reasons to support it. But the numbers show that WE as a human species are irresponsibly destroying then wholesale, destroying their habitats, and hunting them into extinction. We've done it with many species and continue to do it. Hunting to preserve simply doesn't work. Making the killing of these creatures illegal with stiff penalties DOES work. The whale has made a comeback not through hunting, but through making their killing and trade illegal.
Again, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Hunting CAN work and HAS worked in the past, it just has to be done correctly. Let's look at deer populations in America. They are currently at an all time high. In the late 1800s, they reached a low of 500,00 due to overhunting and destruction of deer's natural habitat(see a trend here?). In 1900 the Lacy Act(along with other laws) helped set the road to recovery, and now the deer population in America is estimated at 25 million. Now, will something like that work for the Lion population? I don't know(maybe if you raise the fee to hunt them to something like $100,000, and limit the killing to only Lions over a certain age. Limit the funds to only be used to help set up/fund wildlife sancuaries or something), but making a blanket statement that "hunting to preserve simply doesn't work" is at the least, inaccurate. Does it work in every situation? No, but again, it has worked in the past.