re: Rhino poachers mauled and eaten by lions

For perspective and using a still debated theory on The Toba Eruption.

Humans have bottlenecked several times. Our genetic pool is anywhere from 1k-20k individuals.

There's some debate on if the eruption was a cause of one of the major bottle necks or if it was just part of the series. But it aligns kind of with our presumed ascendancy as survivors learned new strategies to survive.

I'm not saying this apples to apples or even oranges.

But just looking at our own genetic pool that could work out ok if given time.

Whether the theory is correct or not, I don't know. But we still came (back) from a population crisis at several intervals.

quote:

---

Now if the lions would just take out a couple rich hunters hunting big game "in support of wildlife".

---

Except they DO support wildlife with these hunts. The only questions are of sufficiency, other factors, and SJW metaphorical "do we need to anymore" thoughts.

National Geographic elephant hunt

quote:

---

According to Marnewecke, the going rate for a 14-day, single elephant hunt is about $80,000. The trophy hunt limit of five elephants a year in Nyae Nyae represents real money to the San. A portion of the fee is paid directly to community members and to a fund for conservation projects to protect the area’s wildlife. As for the elephant trophies themselves, the client would take the tusks home, while the meat would all go to the San.

---

quote:

---

...the most enlightened hunters have long viewed themselves as naturalists and conservationists, committed to sustainability among animal populations and the preservation of wild places where they stalk game. The linkage has become inextricable. Revenues of hundreds of millions in federal excise taxes levied on hunters go directly to wildlife management and related activities each year in the U.S. alone. And anyone who keeps a freezer full of venison is likely to tell you that the act of killing your own dinner in the wild is more humane than buying the plastic-wrapped meat of industrially raised livestock.

---

Of course, there are concerns:

quote:

---

Biologists estimated total losses of large mammals in protected areas on the continent at up to 60 percent between 1970 and 2005.

---

However, the article continues, climate, encroachment, and POACHERS are the main threats:

quote:

---

big game populations dwindle further under pressure from human encroachment, shifting climate norms, and widespread criminal poaching

---

quote:

---

“I feel quite shitty when an elephant dies, but those elephants pay for the conservation of the other 2,500 that move through here. Trophy hunting is the best economic model we have in Africa right now...In the end it may save this place—and the elephants too.”

---

The article does question the one-for-2,500 number, as well as all numbers given by both sides.

quote:

---

Trophy hunting—the killing of big game for a set of horns or tusks, a skin, or a taxidermied body—has burgeoned into a billion-dollar, profit-driven industry, overseen in some cases by corrupt governments. Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa allow trophy hunting, with varying degrees of transparency and control, establishing yearly quotas meant to reflect the status of species and creating exclusions for highly vulnerable populations. South Africa...no longer allows hunting of leopards. Kenya has banned trophy hunting outright since 1977, and in Botswana...a temporary ban in government-controlled hunting areas went into effect in 2014.

---

Put differently, whether the article will say it or not, the concept is fine. Whether a corrupt government is transparent or uses such funds properly is another question from if the idea is good.

quote:

---

Demand for rhino horn, elephant ivory, and lion bones, especially in Asia, has ignited a scourge of poaching. But the issue remains complicated, with some place-specific animal populations, such as the elephants of Nyae Nyae, thriving where there’s trophy hunting.

---

So poaching is a problem, yet some animals thrive where we game hunt. Go figure.

Of course, figures help:

quote:

---

the Tanzanian wildlife director, Alexander Songorwa, stated that hunters on 21-day lion safaris paid government fees of up to $10,000 and pumped $75 million into the economy from 2008 to 2011. Packer says the 120,000 square miles of hunting areas in Tanzania need $600 million in investment every year...”

---

But I would ask how else money is raised. What does the government or local taxpayers contribute to their conservation?

quote:

---

As for what happens to the hunters’ fees, that is notoriously hard to pin down—and impossible in kleptocracies. And anyway, Packer says, when it comes to funding lion conservation, “it’s such an underwhelming amount generated by sport hunting, it’s no wonder that despite years of lion hunting being allowed in these countries, the lion population has plummeted.” The International Union for Conservation of Nature, which monitors animal populations, reports that the number of lions in five populations in Tanzania fell by two-thirds from 1993 to 2014.

---

As I read it, a corrupt government cannot be an indictment of the underlying concept. That a government misuses the funds does not mean the plan wouldn't work. Further, I argue, the drop in numbers is not from a handful of CEO hunters, but certainly, as briefly mentioned earlier and since ignored in the article, POACHERS are a problem if not the biggest problem.

quote:

---

A giraffe lies crumpled on a game farm in Eastern Cape, felled by a hunter in 2010. Habitat loss and illegal poaching have made giraffes vulnerable to extinction, but in South Africa—where their numbers are increasing—hunting them is legal.

---

Hunting =/= poaching.

quote:

---

Meanwhile “kill shots”—images of hunters posed with their dead quarry—have created viral sensations and stirred animal-rights activists and the general public to fulsome disgust. People were inflamed when Minneapolis dentist Walter Palmer hunted and killed Cecil, the popular lion from Zimbabwe, in June 2015. Controversy resurfaced in July 2017 when Cecil’s son Xanda was shot on a legal trophy hunt.

---

Muh feelings!

quote:

---

As fragile as it is, Nyae Nyae might be called a conditional success story, in part because the hunt quotas have been methodically monitored and increased over the years. On occasion cattle have threatened to overrun the conservancy, but the big game have returned, and the menu of animals offered to hunters includes leopard, kudu, and wildebeest, with prices set by a management committee of five members of the conservancy. Profits are shared communally: Last year each adult over 18 in Nyae Nyae was issued about $70. “We have enough,” the chief, Bobo Tsamkxao, told me as he sat in his yard in front of a disintegrating house, his wives sitting in a row among children and litter. The arrangement also requires that the professional hunter employ and train local people and contribute toward development projects such as schools and health clinics.

---

So...the meat and income helps locals in poverty.

The only real issue is whether the positives outweigh the negatives. The article focuses on some ideas about modern humanity distancing itself from nature and the necessity of hunting, as well as muh feelings arguments. It also briefly mentions poaching and herding encroachment, but it doesn't mention estimated percentages of how much those factors contribute to the big-game losses as compared to the estimated percentage of loss from big-game hunting. That tells me this article doesn't have much to say as far as the ultimate loss-gain effect of these hunts.

What is clear is a lot of money is raised for the exchange of a handful of animals, often old ones nearing the end. I don't think you can say that the net gain is negative as much as I can guess it's positive.

quote:

---

these kill shots make it clear that the hunters take great pride in the killing of an animal, not the saving of a species.

---

Every picture I take with my family makes it clear I take great pride in being adored by other people, not enjoying the time I spend with loved ones.

Of course they take great pride in it. You're clearly not a hunter. Stalking or baiting prey, waiting, taking the risk with nature, etc. is all preparation culminating in a final moment of success, making all the preparation worth it in a peak of adrenaline. Or no kill, then it's all a letdown, and that's why a successful hunt is something to be proud of. It's also in our DNA, just as it is in all other animals which hunt. It is a satisfaction of a primal need.

You speak from ignorance. And a good hunter deplores wasted meat, excessive killing, easy/cheap hunting like corralling a herd just to "shoot fish in a barrel," as it were. Further, you must not know of population control. Happens in the US a lot, with excessive coyote or wild hog population killing local deer, vegetation, or other life off. That's another use/form of hunting.

Get off your presumed high moral ground.

quote:

---

Now if the lions would just take out a couple rich hunters hunting big game "in support of wildlife".

---

quote:

---

This is an ignorant post. Not saying the majority of these hunters aren’t potential douche bags, but to suggest they aren’t supporting the species as a whole, as well as the locals is wrong.

---

Thanos agrees with you.

i'm referring to these ultra rich big game hunters that spend six figures hunting rhinos and elephants in Africa; not local boys hunting deer on a saturday afternoon.

quote:

---

Duck stamp benefits NWRs, not National Parks.
quote:

---

Didn't know the details but that is basically what I meant. I was not sure if there was ever overlap between the two.

quote:

---

It is not federally mandated unless you want Pittman-Robertson dollars.

---

I was under the impression that Pittman Robertson required a percentage of moneys from state licensing and fees were to be used for wildlife management. I just read a brief description of it so it is highly likely I misunderstood.

quote:

---

But, state money isn't typically used on federal land, unless there is some kind of joint management.

---

I did not mean to imply anything else, my apologies if I did.

I appreciate the information.

quote:

---

What's the difference? Who else is putting money into those species to keep them around?

People knock hunters for spending money to hunt animals, yet those same people often aren't putting even a fraction of the money up that hunters do to ensure those species have a future.

---

nobody is arguing that the money from hunters isn't helping, or that hunters removing a specific problematic animal from a population isn't beneficial.

my sentiment, and one that seems to be shared based on some of the responses in this thread, is that it's disingenuous of these hunters to act like they're doing it all in the name of saving the species, when their primary goal is satisfying a desire to kill.

quote:

---

my sentiment, and one that seems to be shared based on some of the responses in this thread, is that it's disingenuous of these hunters to act like they're doing it all in the name of saving the species, when their primary goal is satisfying a desire to kill.

---

You are basing that on a grip'n grin, or "kill shot", whatever you want to call it. I'm not saying that there aren't guys that do it for that reason, but that's about as asinine as saying someone got a college degree or got married just so they could take pictures. A picture doesn't tell the whole story every time. I mean, I've never heard someone say the only reason they hunt is in the name of conservation. I think it's a bit disingenuous to try to take that from any of this, or for someone to even say that. The simple truth is that hunting often benefits conservation.

Would you rather a hunter pay thousands of dollars to kill one of these animals with a conservation benefit, or have a poacher or government agency kill it?