US TV presenter, Melissa Bachmann posted her hunting photos in South Africa. Then, tons of people are screaming about that. Some in the comment section of any article about that even wish her dead. Thousands sign a petition to ban her from entering South Africa.
First, let me start with a disclaimer: I HATE HUNTING. I am not interested in shooting animals! I never, and will never ever hunt anything to spend my freetime!
How to pay the bill?
At the same time, I know that running a National Park is extremely difficult and expensive! Especially in Africa, where tons of heavily armed poachers roam freely. At the same time, millions live in abject poverty nearby the park. At the same time, local governments there ... okay, no need to say anything about them. That means, a national park in Africa is far more expensive and difficult to run than a national park in a 1st world country. The situation is of course a little bit better in South Africa, but it is definitely far worse in other poorer African countries like Tanzania, Kenya, etc.
That means, national parks in Africa needs to pay more bills. They need to buy, install, and maintain miles of fences. They need to hire, equip, and pay lots of park rangers with guns to deter poachers. In many (or all?) African countries, they can expect less helps from their government. The park needs every single cent they can get! And surprise, surprise, hunters pay thousands of Dollars for the hunt! Thousands of Dollars that can be used to pay their bills! Check this list from South Africa as an example of hunting fees: African Sky
Criticizing Melissa Bachman means deterring the hunters to hunt in general, specifically in Africa. Stopping those hunters from hunting means stopping thousands of Dollars cashflow to the national parks. That will make the conservation far more difficult than today's condition, to say the least.
Overcrowding
Then national parks also have overcrowding problems: too many animals inside the national park.
What? That sounds nuts, how come there are "too many endangered animals"? The problem is, national parks have limited space. Animals, especially big one, needs space to provide food and water for them, to provide roaming area, in general: to support them, that means the limited space of national park can only support limited numbers of animals. Small herbivores like antelope and warthog can be controlled by the carnivores, but what about a top predator like lion? Or enormous herbivore with no predator like elephants? Once they are comfortable (the goal of any national park) they will breed, their numbers will grow exponentially. Too many elephants will devastate the grass and trees, killing small birds and rodents, and start a domino effect on the ecology. Too many lions will devastate the herbivores, starting another domino effect. So, what is the solution?
Relocation -> Moving the surplus animals to other place. It is difficult and expensive. The animals can be stressed and die because of it. Plus, for some animals, there are not enough demand, i.e., no place to be relocated.
Contraception -> Limiting the number of birth. This is another method. It is not as difficult and expensive as relocation, but it only solve the problem in the long run. National parks need immediate solution to solve this problem right now!
The last option is of course killing the surplus animals. If you expect that every killing done by veterinarians, you can also expect that the park receive far more bills. If you expect the ranger to shot the animals, then we return to the initial problem, plus unlike hunters, park rangers don't pay the park for the kills.
That means, license hunting is a solution for overcrowding! Let those hunters kill the extra animals, designated by the park! That means hunting actually solve two problems with one shot!
No wonder the national park defends the hunters. Good!
Conclusion
In the end, it boils down to two options:
1) Stop the hunters, depraving the national park of the fund, and take from them one tool to solve overcrowding problem, therefore endangered the whole park, the whole ecosystem, and killed many animals.
2) Let them hunt and kill some animals, let them pay for what they have done, therefore supporting the park both financially and ecologically.
Yes, that means "animal lovers" have to choose between two evils, but that is just the facts. Life is not always easy, we have to take tough, difficult choice. C'est la vie.
Then national parks also have overcrowding problems: too many animals inside the national park.
What? That sounds nuts, how come there are "too many endangered animals"? The problem is, national parks have limited space. Animals, especially big one, needs space to provide food and water for them, to provide roaming area, in general: to support them, that means the limited space of national park can only support limited numbers of animals. Small herbivores like antelope and warthog can be controlled by the carnivores, but what about a top predator like lion? Or enormous herbivore with no predator like elephants? Once they are comfortable (the goal of any national park) they will breed, their numbers will grow exponentially. Too many elephants will devastate the grass and trees, killing small birds and rodents, and start a domino effect on the ecology. Too many lions will devastate the herbivores, starting another domino effect. So, what is the solution?
Relocation -> Moving the surplus animals to other place. It is difficult and expensive. The animals can be stressed and die because of it. Plus, for some animals, there are not enough demand, i.e., no place to be relocated.
Contraception -> Limiting the number of birth. This is another method. It is not as difficult and expensive as relocation, but it only solve the problem in the long run. National parks need immediate solution to solve this problem right now!
The last option is of course killing the surplus animals. If you expect that every killing done by veterinarians, you can also expect that the park receive far more bills. If you expect the ranger to shot the animals, then we return to the initial problem, plus unlike hunters, park rangers don't pay the park for the kills.
That means, license hunting is a solution for overcrowding! Let those hunters kill the extra animals, designated by the park! That means hunting actually solve two problems with one shot!
No wonder the national park defends the hunters. Good!
Conclusion
In the end, it boils down to two options:
1) Stop the hunters, depraving the national park of the fund, and take from them one tool to solve overcrowding problem, therefore endangered the whole park, the whole ecosystem, and killed many animals.
2) Let them hunt and kill some animals, let them pay for what they have done, therefore supporting the park both financially and ecologically.
Yes, that means "animal lovers" have to choose between two evils, but that is just the facts. Life is not always easy, we have to take tough, difficult choice. C'est la vie.
Suggestion
Of course those options are the current option. I have the 3rd option, but this is the hardest one.
Here is my suggestion to "environmentalists" or "animal lovers" who love to equate those hunters with Lucifer: donate thousands of Dollars to replace them BEFORE you scream with a bullhorn. Not only now but routinely like the hunters do. Oh, you need to pay even more as a compensation for any overcrowding. Devising a cheap-humane solution for overcrowding will also be very helpful.
Oh, you can't because you don't have money? You don't know how to solve their problem? Then, SHUT UP, and stop obstructing the conservation! Yes, it is counter-intuitive to say that hunting may save more animals than animal lovers, but that is objectively what happens here since hunters pay the conservation bill, while environmentalists scream to stop them!
Here is my suggestion to "environmentalists" or "animal lovers" who love to equate those hunters with Lucifer: donate thousands of Dollars to replace them BEFORE you scream with a bullhorn. Not only now but routinely like the hunters do. Oh, you need to pay even more as a compensation for any overcrowding. Devising a cheap-humane solution for overcrowding will also be very helpful.
Oh, you can't because you don't have money? You don't know how to solve their problem? Then, SHUT UP, and stop obstructing the conservation! Yes, it is counter-intuitive to say that hunting may save more animals than animal lovers, but that is objectively what happens here since hunters pay the conservation bill, while environmentalists scream to stop them!
What? You don't like people killing animals for fun? I thought protecting the animals is more important than our ego? The fact stands: those hunters pay for conservation and help them solving the overcrowding problem while the animal lovers work hard with love to stop the hunters! Hey, I got news for you: love alone doesn't pay the national park bills! Love alone doesn't solve the overcrowding problem! So sorry to point this out, so sorry to prove objectively that your hated "animal killers" actually help more than you do, but painful truth is far more useful than comfortable falsehood.
By the way, I am not surprised with this nonsense. Private ranches in Texas are the only hope for scimitar-horned-oryx survival. They got their money from the hunting licenses there. Guess what,they experienced this bullcrap. What can be a win-win condition between survival of a magnificent species and hunters is ruined by some holier-than-thou treehuggers.
Last words, I think this quote is fitting to close this writing:
"The truth will set you free ... but first, it will make you miserable!"
Other article:
Elephant overcrowding problem
Lion overcrowding problem
Last words, I think this quote is fitting to close this writing:
"The truth will set you free ... but first, it will make you miserable!"
Other article:
Elephant overcrowding problem
Lion overcrowding problem
