here's reality....millions of Americans deer, turkey, and duck hunt, for the thrill of the hunt, not because they need the food. Hell, they spend an enormous amount of money on their sport, much more than the value of the meat. Most eat what they kill, some don't. Most would save a great deal of money by just purchasing from a wild game butcher/purveyor. Fishings the same. You know, deer, turkey, and ducks are also majestic creatures. It's not just animals from "THe Lion King" and other Disney movies.
No. My USC alum group that meets 3 or 4 times a year has a member who is retired now but for decades ran a big game hunting business in Africa. He spent the better part of each year over there and came back stateside in the off-seasons. He's the first to admit much of the hypocrisy and lies that come out of the hunting business. No choice is without consequences but we can all limit them. I make the effort to buy free range. I don't buy or eat veal. The only protein I have for lunch is fish, usually halibut. What is any different about that process than what goes on in a slaughterhouse? But ironically, your argument is a red herring. Big game hunting is not the same as meat for food source. People who hunt are not in need of food, nor are vast amounts of food being delivered to local tribes or communities. They want nothing more than to kill, to feel superior, to put a trophy on their wall. I find it pathetic.
Like I said, one way or the other I don't think it matters all that much what rich people spend money on. i never saw the point in paying tens of thousands of dollars, or just thousands, for a guided hunt where you're promised a kill of a specific animal. When I worked for MS Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, I saw the need for conservation and the need this state, and others, have for hunting animals. Culling animals is good for the habitat, but I don't know if that could be said about the safari hunts.
Certain elements surely has to be good for the environment. Taking of animals for the better of their population, but I'll have to google it to see. I don't see the benefits of elephants, maybe, because you always hear about their lower population, but maybe the same could be said about lions. I remember an article a while back about Cecil the Lion, and how he shouldn't have been killed. But it did go on about its effectiveness for growing the population. Neither here nor there, though. People are gonna dislike what they dislike. I do agree with taking a sportsman approach to hunting and fishing. And only take what you need and what you will use. I like meat.
Whatever the motives you ascribe to Hunters (i've stated before that it's the thrill of the hunt, a noble sport with old traditions) , the results are jobs, money, food in those local communities, and healthy and protected wild game populations. This is true both in the US and Africa, and pretty much anywhere else. Without hunter's and their money populations of many animals around the world would be in a far worse state. Hunter's make it happen, you just talk and whine and cry.
I remember when Cecil was killed and Jimmy Kimmel talked about it on his show and shed a few tears. I found Jimmy thoroughly disgusting. With all the people killed every day around the world, all the starving people that he could cry over, all the suffering children, he's gonna drop a few tears for a lion. I turned the channel. Whenever he pops up on my TV the channel changes. I can't stand the sight of that guy to this day.
Have you ever cried when your dog died even though there were still starving people and suffering children in the world?
You mean like the dog you have a sentimental attachment to? Maybe not a lion halfway around the globe. I bet he didn't even know how to shake
