re: Animal rights campaigners outragedover cheerleader hunting pics

If the animals are economically valuable, then there is incentive for some of the locals to make a living off of regulated hunting. That starts the ball rolling by making regulation acceptable to at least some.

Hunting fees charged by the govt can increase the resources necessary for enforcement, as can donations to organizations that support safari hunting and are active in those areas. So now there is more official enforcement. When the govt pocketbook gets involved, they will enforce antipoaching regulations pretty stringently whereas before it was unpopular and seen as a waste of money.

When enough people get involved in the industry ( not only professional hunters but villagers who track, work as porters, etc),there becomes a little more pressure not to poach. If an indigenous village gets jobs, money, and meat from regulated hunting they may not turn such a blind eye to a couple of guys shooting elephants for the tusks. That just cost them all a bunch of different ways.

So, in a nutshell, that's how the theory works. You won't stop all poaching, but you'll stop a hell of a lot more than you would if no one was against it and the only thing the animals were seen as were as pests, threats, and sources of ivory.

quote:

---

***opens new tab to google-verify actual existence***

---

No need to google when one already knows they exist

I find it interesting, as well. Can you link a few articles for further reading? Or books. Doesn't matter. Just some extra reading so I can get more up to speed on the topic.

Named for its curved horns like the scimitar sword

LINK

Just searched "economic impact of exotic hunters in Africa" on the internet and the above link was the first result. Goes into the positives and negatives of exotic hunting. See the Section Financial Incentives For Conservation.