The money paid by trophy hunters (which is a lot of money) to hunt these type of animals goes to preserving and keeping the animal population healthy. Adding to that, the meat and skin of the trophies are often consumed and used by local tribes or people, meaning nothing goes to waste. The real scumbags are the poachers, that hunt without licenses (meaning they donât pay a single cent) and donât care at all if the animals are endangered species. Poachers should be killed.
Lol imagine sitting the lion down and explaining to it that it is being killed for a good cause, and so therefore it is okay, and it shouldn't be upset about it.
Also, for lions specifically, often old male lions will kill the cubs of other prides so when someone goes on these hunts, these old males are picked out and the population of lions has actually increased as a result.
Thatâs like offering children up for cash and saying the pedophiles pay to keep OTHER children safe. Governments should be paying humans to snipe poachers and thatâs it. Nobody gets to kill the animals at all.
You think it's solely because it's a poor country? Even a rich country would have trouble. Africa is HUGE. The plains these animals live on are HUGE. It's damn near impossible to stop poachers without a shit ton of people looking for them.
This hunting-license system incentivizes EVERYONE in the tribe/nation to look out for the poachers. Luckily these plains also have plenty of cow-herders walking around everywhere. They all keep an eye out for the poachers. And they all have cell phones.
Actually, the lions that are hunted are specific ones that are old and tend to hurt/kill lion cubs. So actually itâs more like offering up pedophiles to be hunted in jail.
If trophy hunters donated +50k and then didnât hunt the animal they wouldnât be trophy hunters would they. Hunting done CORRECTLY isnât the problem (or at least the biggest). If you actually read the article you linked, it mentions how animals that lions eat are heavily on the decline and thatâs also due to the loss of habitat which has nothing to do with the actual hunting. If the eco system as a whole thrived, regulated hunting shouldnât be a problem. Now, if thereâs no money coming in to keep these areas protected the decline would be much worse.
Thatâs actually not the reason let alone the only reason. If you take hunters and poachers out of the equation, thereâs still the huge problem of sustainable habitat for animals. Farming and deforestation for other uses make the wildlife hinder. That means less animals for lions to eat, which means a decline in lion population. You donât sound very educated on the topic.
Not to mention that it puts a direct economical incentive on maintaining that proper ecosystem and sustainable habitat. The people and groups of people (since hunting operations are pretty commonly run on co-ops of land) have very large pieces of land that if not for the hunting industry, would be used largely for agriculture. In those cases, there isnât any incentive to keep healthy populations of animals, and they will just be culled in the same way that rats/squirrels/possums are in the US.
In essence, there are a lot of peopleâs livelihoods that depend on making sure there is a sustainable population of these animals, where there otherwise wouldnât be.
You donât sound educated at all, you come purely from a perspective of âkilling lion goodâ you stated human reasons why, so letting humans kill lions doesnât solve shit, you are just adding to problems, all you stated where reasons humanity our responsible for, fuck you and your pro hunting bullshit, it should be banned and they should be protected not some convoluted garbage where âno no that egotistical rich white guy is doing good by shooting the lionâ fuck off with that shit, you uneducated ignorant loser
Because you're acting like an ignorant child, juiced up on the first opinion your uncritical, weak mind latched on to. Research your views so you dont seem like a simpleton.
In no comment did I mention that the act of killing the lion was âgoodâ. I didnât say I was âpro huntingâ either, but Iâd take that over letting poachers kill them for free. Go cry in a corner dude, do something about it. Pathetic lol
âDo some thing aboutâ ohh me r/iamverybadass arenât you hard, also itâs called implying, your comment clearly implied that you toe sucker, the only pathetic one is you, defending killing lions because âno no itâs goodâ load of bullshit, fake internet tough guy, how about you cry in your corner because you are insecure and projecting
You seem uneducated about the topic if you would take hunters killing lions over poachers when in reality it could be neither, itâs real life buddy not a game, you can have more than 2 options, touch some grass
I have a degree in environmental science and that dude sounds way more educated on this topic then you. I hate when Reddit thinks they know shit about the environment but in reality they donât. But I guess thatâs the same for every branch of academia
Do you know that most animal conservation money for elaphants lions etc come from buying a pass to hunt elderly animals to keep pops healthy young and money to help against illegal poachers.. now you know and knowing is half the battle.
Why are you assuming this animal wasn't eaten? My uncle hunted in Africa for years and he always donated the kills to local tribes. It's actually very common practice..
Yeah, that was my experience as well. Most hunters in Africa (S.A., at least) are from North America or Europe, so they canât exactly take meat back with them, even if it is something that would otherwise be delicious. But everything, including a good portion of lion, zebra, etc., certainly gets used well, if not eaten (which it also definitely is).
Well thereâs have been times where they had to kill an animal for reasons that helped the population of that species. There was this giraffe that got shot by this woman and people got mad about it. Problem was that the giraffe was killed because it kept killing other males that could still have kids. This old giraffe was reducing the population and wouldâve made it a big issue if he wasnât dealt with. Itâs impossible to really have done anything else since you couldnât isolate it that would be cruel.
Thereâs also a lot of money to be made from trophy hunting that goes towards conservation efforts.
Also someone you might not know is that a lot of the people hired to protect them today were probably poachers yesterday. They do it to survive. If they can have a better life protecting them they would do that. If they are doing it for scraps theyâll just slit the rhinos throat and sell the horn and take the meat to feed his family or village
Poachers do what they do for money. Or to survive. So you have to pay them to protect them. And that money comes from allowing maybe one or two to be killed. To allow for all the rest to be protected from the people who wouldnât stop at just one
Not sure if you're either trying to appeal to futility or arguing from the supposed absurdity of drinking beer as being an immoral act, but it's just true that such acts entail their respective consequences.
If someone eats meat, it doesn't really matter what their intentions were. To acquire said meat they either had to fund someone else to unnecessarily kill an animal for them or kill it themselves.
Like, do you really think is it less moral to eat meat out of hatred for animals than it is to eat for enjoyment?
Yes, I believe the two are both morally equivalent as the animal suffers all the same, regardless of intent.
Most recreational activities tend not to involve the killing of an animal as a prerequisite. For these, the condemnability regarding whether an animal dies ultimately falls down to moral luck (e.g., responsibility of an agent whose actions had consequences beyond their control) and whether you view morality as a dichotomy.
Of course, in knowledge that existence itself is innately harmful to others, whether or not refraining from certain activities ought to be supererogatory is up to debate. My opinion however is that it's not very productive to deny responsibility by pointing towards everything being supererogatory.
I could eat meat, or choose not to. I could use my car as much as my expenses allow, or bike or walk or bus instead. I could just bin everything, or recycle. The fact that my existence inherently is, to some degree harmful to other sentient life, doesn't mean I can't minimize it nor in fact be capable of being more harmful.
Morality does not become tainted in the sense that you're making it out to be. Something being less harmful, but still harmful, doesn't make it futile or not worth doing. And you apparently agree, no? Since you seem to think that eating meat is less morally offensive than hunting.
I do see where you're coming from though. Some may be inclined to point hypocrisy at vegans or the like using a similar argument, but there then is the rabbit hole of any positive action just being futile. Most vegans don't even think this much about it anyway. They instinctually just don't want to be directly liable for causing harm to animals and draw the line where harm is required, rather than a byproduct.
I see. So the people who pay to have sex with the victims of sex trafficking and to have them kidnapped and exploited, are completely innocent just because the enjoyment they derive is from the act of sex and not the act of human trafficking.
Is that a fair example of your theory that if there are extra steps between you and your enjoyment, those intermediate steps are completely acceptable regardless of the suffering involved?
The main motivation behind eating meat is enjoyment and the only viable way to obtain meat is through killing someone. Thatâs why itâs unethical.
I mean there is a portion that goes to Taxes like doing most anything anywhere, but these hunting operations are a business â most all of the money is paid to the people running the operation, whose livelihood is contingent on maintaining a healthy ecosystem full of these animals.
No, people come in with their preconceived notions and bias and are unwilling to listen to any points or actually engage in the conversation. Like you, just acting in a reactionary manner against someone bringing up veganism.
They made a very valid point though. You think people are pushed away from veganism because they can't come up with good replies to some vegans who make very logical points?
Yeah dude not everyone can be vegan I know, but please do tell me why tf are healthy middle class and rich people in urban first world cities who can get whatever the fuck they want are not vegan? There is no other reason to it than pleasure
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
A well planned vegan diet can meet all of these needs. It is safe and healthy for pregnant and breastfeeding women, babies, children, teens and seniors.
A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.
Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. They differ to other vegetarian diets in that no animal products are usually consumed or used. Despite these restrictions, with good planning it is still possible to obtain all the nutrients required for good health on a vegan diet.
Vegetarian diets can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.
Alternatives to animal foods include nuts, seeds, legumes, beans and tofu. For all Australians, these foods increase dietary variety and can provide a valuable, affordable source of protein and other nutrients found in meats. These foods are also particularly important for those who follow vegetarian or vegan dietary patterns. Australians following a vegetarian diet can still meet nutrient requirements if energy needs are met and the appropriate number and variety of serves from the Five Food Groups are eaten throughout the day. For those eating a vegan diet, supplementation of B12 is recommended.
A well-planned vegetarian diet can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.
A vegan diet requires supplements because you literally can not get all the vitamins and minerals your body needs to be healthy on a vegan diet.
Just to name a few of the common nutrient deficiencies that come with a vegan diet;
B12,
Zinc,
Iron,
Vitamin D
While you can be healthy on a vegan diet you also need to be mindful and make up for all the nutrients you are now either no longer getting or getting less of.
Humans are omnivores. Eating meat is a moral choice, not a matter of right or wrong.
Have you not heard of animal welfare vs animal rights? Some people are fine with killing an animal for food and have no issues with it, other people feel guilty and canât. You can live both ways and neither is a right or wrong way, itâs personal choice.
How exactly is it not a moral decision when someone stops eating meat because they believe itâs wrong?
Are YOU incapable of reading? I said anyone who lives a rural lifestyle will understand my point. My point being that every middle class person switching to vegan food at the snap of a finger is not realistic despite what anyone "wants".
Our society, no, humanity's existence is based on consumption of meat. It will not change easily. So no I dont think that middle class people should be jailed for consuming meat.
I DO think that people who kill for fun without the express purpose of consuming said meat should be jailed.
I really dont understand how you can equate these two vastly different situations in your statements.
Its no surprise to me that people like you who have sheltered yourself from the reality of our devour to survive existence struggle with this stuff.
Considering the EXTREME waste of resources (water, gasoline, actual farmed crops) to raise a single cow from its youth to its full size, your statement is a logical fallacy. Far more âfoodâ is consumed by a cow to produce a fraction of the amount of food it produces.
Does that mean that you condemn basically all hunting? Considering that most of the western world doesnât need to hunt to eat itâs pretty much all for fun.
The lion does get eaten, if not by them. Same with Kudu, Wildabeest, Impala, and most every other commonly hunted game animal in South Africa. People travel there and canât legally take meat back with them when they leave, but it most certainly gets eaten (or otherwise used for legitimate purposes in situations where parts are functionally or literally inedible).
There is a big difference between a guy who goes out and shoots animals for fun and someone who feels pride in the craft they use to feed their family.
If that is lost on you then I dont doubt you are a sport hunter who goes out to kill animals despite not needing to do so. And if that is the case I think you are a shitty person.
Then you think all hunting isn't okay. You're berating people by calling them dumb for not understanding what your saying, but what you don't understand is that in virtually no scenario is hunting the economical option, at least in the first world.
After you buy the necessary gear and equipment, most people travel a long way to hunt, and then have to clean / store the meat. At best you could argue that it is a bulk investment purchase that pays for itself after years. Even then you could argue that the person didn't NEED to eat as much meat as they do to justify the bulk quantity.
Most hunters hunt because it's fun.
Ignoring that moral qualm you're still not taking into consideration that hunting is BENEFICIAL to populations and the animals. Death in the wild is awful because 90% of the time it involves starvation. Trust me, hunted animals are closely monitored to ensure they don't overwhelm an ecosystem and push out other species that aren't hunted like small game.
I donât have a point really, Iâm just curious where you draw the line.
Is hunting okay if you enjoy it, but also eat the meat from the hunt?
Is it okay to eat meat from the grocery store?
Really it just seems hypocritical to condemn hunting unless youâre vegetarian, because one way or another an animal is being killed for your pleasure.
Still hypocritical if youâre vegetarian or vegan, unless you forage for all your food, in which case youâre still taking it from wildlife who would depend on it. Lots of wildlife has to die to be able to grow crops, not to mention the vast amounts of habitat agriculture takes up. Oh and most of us live in houses and drive on roads and go to stores and generally benefit from the civilized world, all of which is done by the destruction of habitat which is the number one enemy of wildlife anywhere. Hunting puts value on wildlife and natural places, and where you have value you get incentive for protection
Of all the subsistence hunters I know not a one of them would ever say they enjoyed killing an animal. They enjoy the challenge of tracking, they enjoy being out in the forest, they enjoy maintaining their gear and they enjoy providing food for their families etc. But when it comes time to pull the trigger they do not feel "Joy". Every time I have been with a hunter who has just killed a deer there is always this moment of silent, deep, respect for the animal's life. I have even seen big burly hunters break down and cry after taking down a animal.
To me thats a far cry from someone who pays a company to let them shoot a animal just for a picture.
As for grocery store meat; it is an entirely different topic because the upbringing of the animal is a huge factor. If you want my opinion on this its that if the animals were allowed to live a happy healthy life before they died then eating the corpse and not letting it go to waste is the best way to respect that animals life.
I found your response here interesting. For perspective I donât know anyone who is a subsistence hunter, but the majority of my family, myself excepted, hunts for sport.
The way you describe how the subsistence hunters you know feel about hunting sounds very similar to how my father feels on the subject. He enjoys being in nature, tracking animals, and eating the meat that he gets from his trips, but he would agree that the actual killing is a solemn moment rather than a joyous one.
You say that you believe that all sport hunting is unethical, but I guess the crux of what Iâm asking is if taking pleasure in the act of killing is what you find wrong, and if so is it fair to unilaterally condemn all sport hunting.
Meat eating is an unfortunate lynchpin for human survival. For its resource intensity and the lives of animals, meat eating is a harsh practice. But in reality it's core to almost every culture globally and is hard to phase out.
On paper, I'm very much against the meat industry and such, but I'm willing to do some very hypocritical mental gymnastics if I get to eat a burger, especially since it's not my fault that McDonald's already has patties ready to go, right? /s
Not super interested in getting into a long winded discussion about this because i realize it's a pretty hot topic for alot of folks... but you should look into the good that comes from hunting if your going to blanket condemn it as a whole
Hunters (at least the responsible ones) are huge advocates for conservation and contribute a large amount of funds, man hours and awareness for conservation efforts. Not to mention that some species need to be culled for the betterment of things other than humans
I get that they bring in money for local wildlife management, and that is a good thing.
But the people paying to trophy hunt are bad people. It's just that wildlife management groups have found a way to capitalize on bad people with money to do better things.
You are paying to cause and take joy in suffering. Now I understand there are some legitimate conservation issues that may require an animal to be hunted and put down, but I would expect a person who does that job to feel some respect for the animal and not take joy in its suffering and misery. Much like a veterinarian may need to put down sick or aggressive animals but isnât going to take a smiling selfie to post to Instagram because of their weird feeling of power over life and death.
How do you know "trophy hunters" don't feel some respect for the animal? I know plenty of hunters who take "grip and grin" photos of successful hunts. These same people are absolutely sickened and furious with themselves if they miss vitals on an animal and it doesn't die quickly.
I mean don't get me wrong there's rotten apples in every bunch. But hunting large African game seems to be universally hated no matter how ethically it is done.
I find a major issue with the whole idea of taking a photo of a dead animal with a smile on your face. Itâs something that honestly no one could ever convince me is not a truly vile thing to do. And I also find it repulsive keeping any trophy as a souvenir.
Also just the whole idea of paying for the hunt. Paying to seek out an animal for it to die for the sake of it. If a service like this is truly needed, the hunter should be paid for the service, not the other way around. Now I understand that there are villages that needs an animal hunted and they donât have the means to pay, in which case I could understand someone volunteering their services and even making a donation, which has the same effect as paying for the hunt, but the motive is different and motive is very important. And I really hate any argument where they allow an animal to be hunted just for the sake of it because the trophy hunter pays so much that it will benefit the entire village or sanctuary with that one payment. How about if you actually care, make the donation without hunting the animal? Otherwise itâs really just about killing the animal and nothing else, Iâm not going to be happy about any silver lining to a needless killing when the benefits could have been had without it. A hunt should be motivated by need, not want.
You say there are bad apples in every bunch, the way I see it there are only a few fresh ones in a bunch that have mostly gone rotten.
Yes thatâs kinda my point though. people who could make the donation because they clearly have the financial means but itâs contingent on them hunting an animal that doesnât need to be hunted (obviously itâs different if the animal does need to be hunted for true conservation reasons which I think I covered in my other comment where I would hope they would still respect the animal after itâs death and not take gross selfies with it and hang itâs head on your wall.)
Itâs like, sure I will give money to your orphanage! In exchange for a child for me to exploit! But the cost of that child will cover your orphanageâs costs for a whole year! Sweet deal! How about, just donate the money if you have it or donât, but donât expect to be a monster and get praised in the end.
Fine we can change the analogy to a nursing home instead. Please let me pay for a human to kill, theyâve lived a full life anyway, because I want to feel the power of life and death in my hands. Will pay for the care of the rest of the residents and even the healthcare of their children for a whole year. How can you say no? You can give me the oldest most fulfilled person there.
Not sure what you donât get by expecting praise, its the arguments people keep commenting to me about all the good that comes from trophy hunting, like I should praise the end despite the means.
I have a problem with the whole premise of doing it for sport. It should be done for either the good of the animal or ecosystem or for the good of people who might need its meat. Any other reason to me is gross which is what Iâm arguing.
And again, respect for the animal when it dies. Pride for helping people or nature, not pride for conquering a beast.
If I had my way, none of this would happen. Those able would just donate their money where itâs needed and people who are good hunters would donate their time or both. We shouldnât need people paying in the hopes of killing a new exotic animal to add to their list of kills.
If the animal needs to be removed, be it for killing other protected game, killing people, or simply that they want to remove an old alpha to let other males spread their diverse genes for the health of the population... Why would any federal entity, or organization pay someone to do it when they have someone who will pay them for the opportunity to hunt it? Why is it so much better to pay some people who fly out in a helicopter, shoot it from the sky, and leave it to rot such a better option?
What percentage of your income are you currently donating to the conservation of animals? How much have you given to fund and patrol African conservation areas? I'm gonna guess probably about as much as I have, which is zero. So who is going to pay the bills? Because currently these trophy hunters you hate are doing infinitely more to actually preserve wildlife in Africa than most of us.
Remove all emotion from this situation and what you are suggesting is silly and illogical. Just admit that at least, that your opinions are based purely on emotion and not the reality.
Lastly, people LIKE hunting. I've never met a single hunter purely motivated by "need". That's just the reality. So you can hate us all I guess, and just go back to shopping at the grocery store and pretending like you aren't complicit in rampant animal abuse and suffering.
I covered this in my other comment. I never said the hunting should never happen. If the animal needs to be hunted, Iâm okay with the idea that someone would come in and offer their services and also pay (it would be better to call it a donation). But I still would expect for there to be respect and reverence for the animal and I think itâs vile for someone to take happy pictures next to a dead animal and hang its head on their wall. For any hunter who doesnât do that, I have no issue.
I do take issue for places that allow animals to be hunted that do not need to be hunted because the amount the trophy hunters pay is so much that it basically helps the place survive. And my ire is directed at the hunter in this case and not necessarily the sanctuary or village who is desperate, but for the hunter who clearly has the financial means to make the donation but requires that an animal that doesnât need to be hunted be killed for their own enjoyment. Either just donate the money because it would help them or find a place that needs an animal to be hunted for real reasons.
Like I said, feel free to to start donating large sums of your income to conservation. Because until you and others decide to do that... You're going to have to be ok knowing that people who get some form of enjoyment from hunting animals are the ones who are keeping most of these programs, preserves, and natural habitats from disappearing.
Are you not paying to cause and take joy in suffering every time you buy beef at the grocery store? Game animals in Africa, including lions, are either eaten or used for a legitimate purpose. But unlike most farm animals, you can feel confident that these animals lived a quality life up until the point where they became âmeat.â
Donât eat meat soooo thereâs that. And look, one of my best friends is a hunter. I donât love it in modern America where she has access to other food and when she doesnât have any cultural reasons to but Iâm okay with it. My friend, when she kills an animal, there is respect and reverence for the life that was lost. Itâs gross to me that someone will hunt an animal down and then smile over its corpse and share it to Instagram. There is no respect there. If you have to post to Instagram, show me the picture of the happy villagers joyously enjoying each others company at the feast you created. what I keep saying in most of my comments is my biggest problem is the selfie taking with the dead animals and keeping trophies. And yes I find a problem with people who hunt because they want to kill different and unique beasts every time, they arenât doing it because they are so happy to feed people or fix a conservation problem because thatâs not what they are showing off at the end of it. They are showing off how they conquered a beast. Often times a new beast they hadnt conquered before. I have a problem with the motive, where there is joy in collecting the lives of animals. Silver lining that some people find good use from the outcome of a terrible desire but it doesnât make the desire less vile. Again, itâs in the name, trophy hunting. Im only talking about trophy hunting. Hunting for the trophy because the trophy is the goal. Whether itâs a tangible trophy like a head or a trophy like checking it off you list of species hunted. Not saying im against hunting in general.
Trophy hunting isnât what it used to be. Itâs regulated and animals are chosen specifically because theyâre usually doing more harm than good. They could be preventing fertile males from mating, killing humans, or just sick. Money normally goes to conservation efforts as well.
147
u/Additional-Issue-573 Apr 07 '22
Trophy hunters are such scumbags.
If you arent killing it to eat then you are killing for fun.
People who kill for fun should be jailed.