At any rate, we don't tell stories about them, only actual hunts.
Based on having spoken at length with a fellow who's been on two of the hunts, and from what I've read in articles by others who have hunted in the same general area, the doves are actually fairly challenging targets even if there are a LOT of them.
From the hunter's perspective it IS an actual hunt.
From the perspective of the farmers it's a crop preservation effort that they don't have to pay for.
From the perspective of the guide and his employees it's a living.
From the perspective of nearby villagers it's free food.
From the perspective of the local economy it's a tourist attraction with all the benefits that provides.
From the perspective of conservation it's maintaining a healthy dove population to prevent dove overpopulation and the horrors that attend such problems. (Disease, starvation, less humane method of population control--remember how they killed the passenger pigeons by burning sulfur under the trees they roosted in at night, etc.)
If there's a downside I'm really not seeing it. In fact it's an ingenious approach that simultaneously solves a number of problems and benefits a large number of people.
So, which is better in your opinion and more "story worthy"?
A.) Littering a pasture with broken clay fragments?
B.) Shooting a small number of doves in the U.S that aren't really hurting anyone or anything, from a population that isn't in any danger of becoming overpopulated and when the dead doves don't really provide any significant food source to anyone who actually needs it?
C.) Benefiting a third world local economy, preserving the crops of indigent farmers, providing food for poor villagers, helping to solve a conservation problem, helping employ people who might not otherwise be able to find work, doing it ALL at once AND having fun in the bargain?
