The consequences of NOT killing lions

Homepage Forums Small Talk The consequences of NOT killing lions

This topic contains 13 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  _Robert_ 3 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2208

    Unseen
    Participant

    Dr. Walter Palmer, a Pennsylvania dentist, made the unforgivable mistake of killing a lion with a cute name. Had it been another lion, we’d probably not even be thinking about big game hunting at all, but since we are, it’s not quite as easy as “Let’s just stop killing lions and other big game.”

    Africa is the poorest of continents (not counting Antarctica, of course). One way to make a living there is, sadly, poaching. Elephant tusks, rhino horns, lion parts, and various other wildlife trophies can bring in what seems to poor Africans almost unbelievable amounts of money. Some people even risk getting shot by anti-poaching police, so great is the reward and temptation.

    Money made issuing hunting permits is used in conservation efforts (and I’m sure some is siphoned off by corruption as well). Apparently, eco tourism doesn’t bring in nearly as much money (would you pay $300,000 or even $50,000 to sit in a bus or jeep and photograph animals? I didn’t think so.

    Now, I don’t like the idea of killing individuals in order to save their species (unless perhaps as a way of getting rid of drug dealers), but if you want to put an end to it, you need to replace it with something.

    For a bit of unbiased background that lays out the complexities of the issues involved, read this Discovery article.

    #2215

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Unmanaged hunting has been fatal to a host of species already. The Tasmanian Tiger, Dodo Bird, Steller’s Sea Cow, Bubal Hartebeest antelope, Javan Tiger, Zanzibar leopard, Pyrenean Ibex, Western Black Rhino were all hunted to their end by relentless people. We came very close to losing the blue whale as well. Today, there are less than 100 Florida panthers left.

    That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the seemingly inevitable loss of habitat, the real killer. Every time a human baby is born, the earth shutters. It’s blasphemy, I know.

    #2222

    Unseen
    Participant

    That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the seemingly inevitable loss of habitat, the real killer. Every time a human baby is born, the earth shutters. It’s blasphemy, I know.

    People decry the predation of domestic cats on native wildlife, but as you have pointed out, it’s really not the cats which are the ultimate cause, it’s human encroachment on natural environments which drives out the natural predators, who tend to be more shy of humans than their prey items. Humans bring cats with them and all the cats do is take the place of the natural predators. Of course, cats are also in many cases more efficient predators, but they would probably predate less if they had to worry about the natural predators, some of which are quite capable of killing cats or at least chasing them off.

    #2223

    Simon Mathews
    Participant

    Money made issuing hunting permits is used in conservation efforts…

    I see the dilemma here but wouldn’t it be the same if it was stated that money made from selling sex slaves or selling heroin was put into conservation efforts? I don’t think we would then condone this.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  Simon Mathews.
    #2242

    Matt
    Participant

    I don’t know enough about lions to endorse or condone the hunting permit scheme.

    I do know that in the US, a big part of allowing the hunting of deer is to cull their numbers so that they don’t over consume their environment. Likewise here in Australia, we had a massive kangaroo cull because their numbers were spiralling out of control. Even today, camels are fair game… I’ve heard we even export camels to the middle east.

    But I digress. Here’s the real point: the lions in question belong, as much as any animal can, to the country in which they reside. Is it really our place to tell that country what they can and can’t do with their own natural resources?

    #2247

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Perhaps heroin addicts or fictitious human borders seem important to preserve. The fact is that lions are on their way out. It won’t take long either…2050 seems to be the estimate. Tigers are barely alive, there are less than 4,000 left. Zoos are becoming museums; I hope our grandchildren enjoy rats and roaches.

    According to National Geographic, some 200,000 lions roamed across Africa a century ago. Today, there are less than 30,000.
    Read more: http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/07/29/how-endangered-are-lions#ixzz3i06vn6td

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/african-lions-face-extinction-by-2050-could-gain-endangered-species-act-protection/

    Of the original nine subspecies of tigers, three have become extinct in the last 80 years; an average of one every 20 years. It has been predicted all tigers may become extinct in the wild within the next decade.
    http://www.tigersincrisis.com/the_status.htm

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  _Robert_.
    #2265

    Unseen
    Participant

    But I digress. Here’s the real point: the lions in question belong, as much as any animal can, to the country in which they reside. Is it really our place to tell that country what they can and can’t do with their own natural resources?

    This idea of animals being natural to or belonging somewhere whereas other animals (man included) don’t is poppycock. Camels, horses, and cheetahs evolved in North American and ended up someplace else (btw, the puma’s closest big cat cousin is the cheetah, which I always thought was cool). Species move around, disappearing from where they originally “belonged” and taking up what can only be described as temporary residence somewhere else.

    #2266

    Unseen
    Participant

    I see the dilemma here but wouldn’t it be the same if it was stated that money made from selling sex slaves or selling heroin was put into conservation efforts? I don’t think we would then condone this.

    How about a license to kill 007-style on drug dealers? “Drug dealer hunting season runs from November 15 through March 15. $10,000 for each verified drug dealer pelt.”

    #2267

    Simon Mathews
    Participant

    How about a license to kill 007-style on drug dealers? “Drug dealer hunting season runs from November 15 through March 15. $10,000 for each verified drug dealer pelt.”

    I like it.

    #2270

    Unseen
    Participant

    I can see putting the heads of dead drug dealers up on the wall in my den or on the walls of my banquet room.

    #2275

    Davis
    Participant

    Losing a dominant member of a foodchain is never good…and losing even one member who can now be counted in the mere thousands (or even hundreds) can make a big difference (especially if it is a baby making machine).

    The whole “cute name” or “bandwagon” element is of zero importance per whether lions should be protected or not. The mindless mob ultimately has little effect in overall policy or budgets for conservation (though with a lucky example they can drive up the budget a little more for a little while). If we were smart enough to give a popular name and allow online tracking with all highly endangered animals then we could hopefully keep at least a few species from their near certain end.

    Conservation projects are generously funded by the UN and other international organizations…so selling permits to kill off one highly endangered animal to add what is ultimately a modest amount of money per the overall budget…is not an answer (it’s ludicrous). On the other hand…allowing people to sponser a specific animal (that is donate money to add extra protection) would be a grand idea.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  Davis.
    #2299

    Matt
    Participant

    @unseen

    Species move around, disappearing from where they originally “belonged” and taking up what can only be described as temporary residence somewhere else.

    I wasn’t talking about species, I was talking about individual animals. E.g. Zimbabwe is home to X lions. Obviously species as a whole can move, change, and even span multiple countries.

    How about a license to kill 007-style on drug dealers? “Drug dealer hunting season runs from November 15 through March 15. $10,000 for each verified drug dealer pelt.”

    That’s fucked.

    @davis

    Losing a dominant member of a foodchain is never good

    Indeed. The question remains, what can we do about it when it happens outside of our control. Should we assert authority over Zimbabwe and demand they turn into a giant environmental protection zone? Economic sanctions? Invade the country and take control that way? As it stands, we have no real right to tell Zimbabwe what they can and can’t do in Zimbabwe.

    allowing people to sponser a specific animal (that is donate money to add extra protection) would be a grand idea.

    I disagree, funding should go to protecting the ecosystem. Not much good having loads of lions with no lion food running around.

    #2318

    Davis
    Participant

    Should we assert authority over Zimbabwe and demand they turn into a giant environmental protection zone? Economic sanctions? Invade the country and take control that way? As it stands, we have no real right to tell Zimbabwe what they can and can’t do in Zimbabwe.

    Actually yes. An enormous percentage of aid to Zimbabwe which is desperately necessary for supporting/sustaining their intimately related tourism industry (especially eco-related aid) is dependant on them protecting endangered species. And for the most part…it is incredible how much African countries (though certainly not all) are doing to protect endangered species despite quite often…their inability to do anything else in their governments.

    I disagree, funding should go to protecting the ecosystem.

    Keeping mamallian species from being wiped out is an essential part of protecting the ecosystem if any existed.

    #2332

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Yes, Davis. I commend the brave men and women who confront sometimes desperate and deadly poachers in several African nations. Animals species have shown remarkable resilience when given protection.

    The future of nature and animals seems tenuous. Despite the efforts of so many pro-conservation advocates…if climate change begins to diminish the human food supply chain, animal rights will be brushed aside in a heartbeat.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.