Why trophy hunting helps protect animals

[@KushNakar]

I am born and raised in Kenya, where Trophy hunting has been banned for decades now. Our current conservation model is protection of wildlife areas such as National Parks and reserves by government entities. It isn’t the most efficient but there have been improvements by private people. Basically, they form a conservancy near the national parks/reserves where the wildlife often moves to. They team up with local people who own the land are paid money for leasing their properties. The conservancy also works with lodges to give jobs to the locals and target high end clients. Locals also earn an amount for every bed that is occupied in the lodge. High end clients in turn get the privacy and intimacy of a small lodge where there’s very few people compared to the national parks and reserves. It has been successful enough in places such as the Masai Mara National reserve where the conservancies are bigger in size than the reserve itself. Another example is the Lew Conservancy and other conservancies in Northern Kenya which follow a similar model. I respect your views and disagree with this model because wherever it is legal to hunt for trophies, there shall be people doing it illegally and get away through bribes. There is no way to monitor every hunt that is undertaken and rely on the information of one individual who went for the hunt along with the hunter. Animals pass down information from generation to generation and for every animal that is killed, the species suffers because of their knowledge being lost. We don’t understand so much about these animals and they’re more beautiful alive than dead.

[@92divyansh]

models of national parks and sanctuaries funded by wildlife visitors is more viable..thanks for writing such a beautiful piece.

[@nicolesarkis]

Thank you for this eloquent perspective. I’ve seen trophy hunters a few times at airports in African countries, always proudly reciting shopping lists of animals they had killed on their trip: lion, cheetah, leopard, in addition to the ruminants shown in this video. I chose Kenya for safari because trophy hunting is illegal, we had an amazing experience there.

[@jumamuiruri6027]

Thanks for your contribution

[@oswaldrabbit1409]

@@nicolesarkis I love trophy hunters, they have the coolest stories, and they're contributing to animal conservation, although I have no real interest myself.

[@peterapps1514]

Kenya's improvement in animal numbers is from a very low base that followed wholescale eradication when wildlife was deprived of any tangible value for local people; resulting in the conversion of its habitat to commercial agriculture.

[@entropicpedro]

"We can't expect the poorest people in the world to maintain something largely valued by the richest people in the world..." I am completely sold on this argument...So true

[@falconJB]

@@HH-gf6rk The west should put more into funding green innovations that will help the developing world continue to develop without trashing the environment.

[@peterapps1514]

@@HH-gf6rk Both China and India have fully developed industrial economies, in some sectors more developed than those in the west.

[@entropicpedro]

@@HH-gf6rk how am I supposed to know? What does that have to do with conservation in Africa?

[@noladent395]

You make it something they value. Tourism brings in millions of dollars to see live animals.

[@davej5244]

lol colonialist argument, Botswana was the second poorest country in the world with no paved roads or train tracks when they discovered diamonds so that point is disproven

[@mikefenton5118]

I went on Safari in Zimbabwe and the Rangers their mentioned that 90% of Matobos National Park's revenue was generated through trophy hunting. 5% came from photography tourist like myself

[@Hello-hz7gj]

That's propaganda they tell to the world, those rangers are part of a bigger mafia. A conservation built on greed and bloodthirst is pointless. It must be done with sacrifice and free will of the people to keep their wildlife alive.

[@MrBlobhunter]

Trophy hunting is commom in southern Africa countries

[@Hello-hz7gj]

@@MrBlobhunter That's why I only donate money to countries like Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, etc.

[@parsarahimi71]

Imagine someday an intelligent species do intelligent human hunting for preserving the galaxy ...

[@waliddjema5442]

have you seen warhammer 40k Bruh we'll take over the galaxy!

[@PimScotney]

And?

[@YoungRin-ms]

Crazy right or smart🤔

[@rdm3373]

They might. It's not whether they have a "right" to do it. Our right would be irrelevant

[@jamessparkman6604]

@@YoungRin-ms hunting and conservation, getting along nothing but a network of lies

[@bassuona1]

I suppose efficient land use (management) has a far bigger impact on wildlife populations. Trophy hunting is a least desirable option, and it shows how hopeless the situation is when you need that to preserve your wildlife.

[@rynovanderwesthuizen6932]

If you can change the human nature and remove the selfishness, then only can you remove hunting. Unfortunately you can never do that.

[@jamessparkman6604]

@@rynovanderwesthuizen6932 the worse it this video despite the title it is not a truth it is a lie Trophy hunting is wrong.

[@jeycalc6877]

It's also important to use fur. Using plastic clothing like polyester/nylon, etc. is terrible for the environment. Its why so many indigenous use animals clothing and why it's disrespectful to have such bans

[@MemekingJag]

Definitely, if a hunted animal has hide/fur, not making it into something useful like clothing is wasting the life you took.

[@sachinraghavan4556]

Faux fur doesn't directly harm animals, it doesn't require trapping and slaughtering them which is deliberate and premeditated. They can't be compared.

[@jeycalc6877]

@@sachinraghavan4556 yes it does, because it pollutes the environment which hurts animals and their ecosystem

[@JDVRadio]

as an african living in africa i can guarantee you the government won’t give half the money given by these hunters to trophy hunters. so it’s not an outrageous conversation. these are facts

[@davej5244]

You didnt even mention what country or region, and of course thats how wildllife deps. tax and make money to manage parks. Now if u wanna make the argument based on what they do with that money is entirely different; as a European living in Europe

[@JDVRadio]

@@davej5244 Very valid point. i’m from a southern african country named several times in the video. the elephant population is now unmanageable. causing havoc and deforestation. the government has other things on their plate and can ill afford to control the elephants nor relocate them elsewhere in africa. corruption is rampant, and poaching is on the rise. there’s a program to allow them to be hunted but it’s been met with resistance of course. so it’s fair game for poachers. this is just one example of course. but you can see how quickly the situation becomes untenable

[@JDVRadio]

@@Alexeiwith i wish

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

@@davej5244 LOL. Europe and conservation.

[@AlexanderTheEvenGreater]

Which country?@@JDVRadio

[@laurencebarnes9298]

I went into watching this video with a strong fixed opinion that trophy hunting is and will always be wrong, but after seeing the video and the "selected stats" (I use this term very loosely) it's difficult to condemn such an activity without a viable alternative. Is hunting animals for fun abhorent and disgusting? Yes. But is the death of a few to support a growth of animals and a fair amount of humans worth their sacrifice? Also yes. For now, while there is no viable alternative, it's difficult to say banning it without knowing how many human lives would be ruined.

[@treed6953]

@@bhanuvohra4681 but it looks like we have solved a problem with an unsavory solution for some.

[@willre00]

@@bhanuvohra4681 The problem is poaching and illegal hunting, not trophy hunting. Calling these two types of hunting the “same” is misleading.

[@laurencebarnes9298]

@@bhanuvohra4681 it's almost as if you didn't read the comment and just responded. I agree that killing them is a problem but there is currently no solution. Great that you're responding but you're not presenting any new info. I don't actually see the point of you speaking up

[@anurupwork132]

I am not against trophy hunting entirely, but your argument can be used only for selective species. Take a case of future, when human population will be 10B and consumption of resources is double. Will you still say, ""But is the death of a few to support a growth of animals and a fair amount of humans worth their sacrifice? Also yes." ? Similar for animals we adore Panda, Dogs, etc.

[@laurencebarnes9298]

@@anurupwork132 obviously my answer is only for the scenario and animals mentioned in the video. So I don't really get your point about an irrelevant hyperthetical scenario 🤔

[@vladaoliviaw.7382]

The best way to preserve wild life is to stop thinking of animals in terms of "it". Start seeing them for the sentient beings they are. Acknowledge they have the right for their lives and for their bodies. Build the economy of these areas on this bases. That's the only way to treat the animals humanly.

[@PleaseViewMyChannel]

💯💚

[@ahousecatwhohasacellphone]

exactly!

[@normanwells2755]

The era of colonialism you seem to long for by imposing your values on other countries is over. Countries have the right to make resource management decisions themselves. You have to present your wish list in a way that makes sense to them.

[@RoshniPeshavaria]

Bless you!

[@normanwells2755]

Fine, they'll call the lion Cecil and shoot it if it makes you feel better.

[@everythingisfine9988]

It's a brilliant idea. Using economics to save these endangered animals from extinction. As a bonus, these poor locals can benefit.

[@noladent395]

Except they don't. This video is hunter propaganda. The money goes into the pockets of the outfitter and corrupt government officials. Kenya has banned hunting, has thriving animal numbers, protected habitat, and makes millions of dollars from safari and photographic tourism. That's how it should be done.

[@rynovanderwesthuizen6932]

@@noladent395 That is where you are wrong. Kenya lost most of their wildlife since banning hunting and also most of their wild habitat. Southern Africa has increased their numbers and habitat, because they can afford to do so. Hunting paid to expand wildlife habitat and thus numbers also increased. Kenya has many species that are endangered, that are not endangered in Southern Africa

[@Entergalactic]

@@rynovanderwesthuizen6932 but its our country and we don’t want it

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

@@Entergalactic That's fine. Canada and the USA have a hunting based conservation system and it's arguably the single best system in the world. Countries like Slovenia have a similar system, and unlike most European countries, it has a healthy wilderness. You can compare that to Germany in which only 0.6% of the country is wilderness. Pakistan also had great success with implementing a hunting based system, including bringing back Ibex populations from the brink of extinction, quadrupling the conservation area to 30% of Gilgit-Baltistan, preventing poaching of all animals and also has helped the snow leopard population increase as their prey is more plentiful and they are much less likely to risk going after livestock. Maybe Kenya will be the country to break the mold and have a successful non hunting oriented conservation system. So far it doesn't seem like the case, but oh well. It is your country and I wish it the best.

[@AlexanderTheEvenGreater]

If you don't have hunting you don't have the wildlife. Sorry, but it's true.@@Entergalactic

[@Victor-wv3og]

Right now this subject is neutral for me because I respect the trophy hunting done respectful and for a reason more other than fame and money and more for food for the locals and controlling the population of the animals. I do though really hate disrespectful trophy hunting by rich people/celebrities posting it on their instagram and not giving a f about the animal.

[@visvesh8529]

Is it really a sport when the other team doesn’t know it’s in the game .

[@taoteching1111]

Technically, there's no 'other side' in this sport. Players do not compete with animals but other players.

[@noladent395]

@@taoteching1111 Killing for sport is twisted and evil.

[@serpentmasterarmstrong2630]

@@noladent395 You do realize they don’t just shoot it and leave it. The food is taken and the hide is used, heck even the bones. They also feed villages with exceptionally large game.

[@rynovanderwesthuizen6932]

Are you honestly against feeding millions of starving Africans? Also, who else will fund the conservation efforts? nobody? So get off your high horse and leave the hard working people alone

[@noladent395]

@@serpentmasterarmstrong2630 Nope. That is hunter propaganda. Also people don't need to eat meat to live. They are more healthy not eating it.

[@nmsjeat]

Interesting perspective. It bears some resemblance with the preservation of forests. Many people want to leave large regions of forest completely untouched as a carbon sink, but the truth is much more complicated than that. The thinning of forests is important for both the livelihood of the forest as well as serving as an economic incentive for keeping and managing the forests. The wood is then further used to build houses and replace climate-harming substances such as plastics and beyond. Naturally, the situation is different in the case of rain forests, which simply do not grow back after cutting them for farm land.

[@noladent395]

The forest doesn't need us thinning it or "managing " it. Forests thrived for millions of years before man came on the scene. Man is destructive with everything generally. You are right about rain forests though. This complex, important ecosystem does not come back.

[@noladent395]

@Gyumin Kim Instead of doing that, plant more trees! The world is needing millions of more trees to combat climate change

[@BeaverChainsaw]

@@noladent395 fun fact Yosemite forest was technically an artificial forest. The Ahwahneechee people used to set controlled fires to maintain oak population until they were kicked out, then Yosemite started getting more denser and less healthy and had more dangerous fires. Sometimes human intervention helps

[@izdatsumcp]

The truth is that people acting in their self-interest in a capitalistic system are the best conservators of nature.

[@nadacreadora13]

Forests have been managed for centuries but mainly with fire, logging doesn't have the same effect on forests as the low-intensity fires that were the rule on many ecosystems. On the other hand, old-growth forests are complex ecosystems that are endangered, these systems self regulates, they do not need any intervention, and they just constitute a tiny percentage of the forests. Let's keep them! There are a lot of tree plantations that we can use for wood.

[@stefang457]

Before this video, I was against Trophy hunting but after this video, I am completely all for it (if it's done responsibly), this makes you think about everything and that you don't need to go with the flow just because is popular.

[@megafaunaforever]

too bad for you. Trophy hunting is the biggest threat to biodiversity, and this video is poorly documented, and perhaps paid by trophy hunters.

[@gaminggubber3139]

@@megafaunaforever doubt its paid by trohpy hunters. if you sit down and look at the facts, if it werent for trophy hunting these exoctic animals would be hunted to extinction. That being said trophy hunting is far from a threat to biodiversity let alone the biggest one. Destruction of hapitat for farming and builing space might be a better place to point fingers.

[@megafaunaforever]

@@gaminggubber3139 If you look at the FACTS, there is ZERO justification for trophy hunting. By surgically removing the individuals with the BEST genetics, species are condemn to extinction faster than ever.

[@gaminggubber3139]

@@megafaunaforever this is just plain wrong i dont even know how to argue with such a statement

[@megafaunaforever]

@@gaminggubber3139 because there is nothing to say. TROPHY hunters have nothing to say from a scientific perspective. Trophy hunting is reverse selection, the opposite of natural selection. It is utterly wrong from a scientific perspective. It destroys the animals with the best genetics, their species and ecosystems. Did you know that a study in Southern India, for instance, has shown that the longer the tusks of a bull elephant, the less parasites it carries? Unfortunately all trophy hunted animals are animals in their PRIME and removed from the gene pool before reproducing. That is why there are so few "trophies" left and elephant tusks are smaller, lions smaller etc. That economist video is misleading and it was done without consulting the scientists working a lifetime with iconic megafauna, like Joyce Poole who has ben studying male elephants for the last 40 years in Africa.

[@selormvan]

How about adopting a different approach? e.g. In Ghana, the people of Winneba celebrate a trophy-hunting-like festival "Aboakyer" (animal catching) where young men are split into two teams to catch a deer by hand in the forest without injuring the animal. The animal is usually released after the trophy is presented to the winners (the first group to catch a deer). We can actually learn from these people. I think we can responsibly re-adapt this sport while promoting conservatism and tourism, and not just "killing" animals for "sports".

[@selormvan]

I still don't understand what sporting value we're trying to demonstrate trophy-hunting by gun? Showing that I can shoot? What about showing bravery and facing a wild animal in teams instead?

[@MeirelesdeSousa1]

Hi! That looks like a wonderful approach. A way to satisfy random people’s taste and respect the wildlife! Can you please give me some link to a paper or documentary, or maybe even some news talking about this? I would love to watch it

[@SauravKumar-ze9qq]

@@ishanmukherjee5194 You should see how the trophy hunting business works, how the animals are killed. There are hundreds of farms. And ofcourse there are many types of cruel sports not just in India but everywhere in the world.

[@XOPOIIIO]

I missed the monetization part of your plan.

[@coe3408]

@@ishanmukherjee5194 In Brazil we have that too, it is called "pega de boi". A calf is released in the bush, and men go inside mounted on horses, the calf is frequently injured.

[@clarkloewen1234]

This is the kind of balanced reporting that I expect from The Economist. Keep it up!👍🏽

[@noladent395]

Not balanced at all. This is hunter propaganda and full of falsehoods.

[@clarkloewen1234]

So what do lions eat?

[@normanwells2755]

I'm no hunter and at one time disliked the concept of trophy hunting. But as a farmer who dealt with relatively minor problem wildlife issues compared to what African subsistence farmers face, I was ripe to accept this concept when I first heard of it from Alan Savory in the late '90s. It also helped to have an open mind and not be emotionally invested in extreme animal rights positions.

[@MrBlobhunter]

Extreme animal rights? Like a right to live?

[@normanwells2755]

@@MrBlobhunter Right to life is a human right.

[@Mothobius]

@@normanwells2755 no it's really not just for humans.

[@normanwells2755]

@@Mothobius Name one country in southern Africa where animals have right to life enshrined as a constitutional right or a bill of rights.

[@Mothobius]

@@normanwells2755 The entire continent is full of animals, if you know what I mean..

[@sebasvarsom]

Killing an animal is not the only solution to the problem. What is needed is the political will to really allocate resources to the conservation of the species; since it is no coincidence that these countries tend to be the most corrupt. But, if the villagers don't trust their government, then they should organize to fix the problem. And remember that being poor is not a limitation. Take the case of what happened in a small fishing village in México, where the same population realized that it was increasingly difficult to fish and they were worried that their children would have to emigrate due to lack of fish. So they organized and decided to promote the creation of a protected natural area in order to attract tourism, since they realized that tourism pays more than fishing. Ten years after its creation, the biomass of fish in the area increased by 460%. In addition, populations of whale sharks, manta rays, humpback whales and endangered sea turtles were recovered. Today, divers from all over the world visit this small town to see the extraordinary marine life there, and local fishermen reap the benefits of the restocked fish populations near the Natural Protected Area. The history of Cabo Pulmo National Park demonstrates that local citizens with strong community involvement and leadership can successfully use federal laws to protect their resources and communities. This success is recognized worldwide and proof of this is that UNESCO designated the entire area as a World Heritage Site.

[@MemekingJag]

Most of the countries with trophy hunting are also incredibly corrupt. You send foreign aid indiscriminately to a country, most of it ends up in the pockets of 'presidents for life' and local warlords. You pay directly when there to help the local community repopulate species, you have a far better chance of it reaching the conservation effort it promises. In an ideal world, I'm sure every endangered species would get the funding to help it survive and grow, but until then, the best method to protect entire species is to take tax from trophy hunting. Rich people have fun and excitement, the local community gets helped economically, and the actual species gets to repopulate. It's a win-win.

[@sachinraghavan4556]

Killing animals at all should never be considered a method of conservation.

[@aliakbarsafdari4084]

12:11 Shoots an oryx, video shows wildebeest?

[@Mirsab]

Maybe the oryx was amongst the wildebeest

[@viniciusmagnoni6492]

They shoot more than one animal in each hunt.

[@francosalinas4459]

That’s just an excuse. You could do the exact same with tourism. Instead of hunting…build tourism and have the locals hired to protect & lead the tours. Its just that no one wants to invest money in that, the people with the money would rather hunt those animals instead. So that’s the only option.

[@sachinraghavan4556]

Thank you, I suggested the very same on another video. It's all about money, dominance, and pleasure for hunters, nothing more. They have to pretend they're doing something virtuous so that they can fool themselves and the opposition alike.

[@Stone45781]

Aspect ratio is perfect

[@Mirsab]

21:9 I think

[@suedenim6590]

The argument of "too many" of any animal is a lie. Left alone life reaches a state of equilibrium

[@ethantaylor2442]

That's an interesting statement, any evidence to back that up?

[@suedenim6590]

@@ethantaylor2442 literally look anywhere on the planet or even out into space friend because everything that exists is striving to obtain balance. Osmosis will happen with diffusion across a semi permeable membrane from where there is more to where there is less until a state of equilibrium is achieved. Put extremely simply imagine a planet where the only life is two flowers a black petal one and a white petal one. Too many of the black and the heat gets absorbed and the temperature rises and kills them off, conversely too many white flowers and the heat gets reflected causing a cooling effect and the same happens. So a situation will be achieved where the flowers reach a state of equilibrium with the environment you won't have "too many" of either, nature will obtain its own state of balance one thats - "Natural". You can't have "too many" of any animal because what will happen will be a resurgence in the predator numbers for said animal until the numbers are back to normal. You won't then be left with a situation of loads of predator animals because the food supply will have become scarce and nature once again will sort the numbers out. Life is about balance in all things, so as far as evidence goes, just look around friend, its literally absolutely everywhere

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

Yes, life reaches a state of equilibrium - by having vast numbers of animals dying of starvation or thirst during drought after they have overgrazed their environment, or from diseases. In a way what hunters are doing in 'managing' the animal numbers are indeed against the force of nature, as they want to prevent the animal population from having ridiculous peaks and bottoms due to natural reasons.

[@suedenim6590]

Obviously the entropic shift is an inevitably within all systems but I'm not giving giving a lecture ha! This is a KZbin comment section so my comment still stands as true regardless of the inevitable shift towards entropy (slow unavoidable damage ie death) that effects all closed systems. Put simply, the one thing I can guarantee you all is that you will slowly decay and die and on that cheery note (lol) have a beautiful day and make sure you make the most of it and remind those you love that you love them x

[@ethantaylor2442]

@@suedenim6590 you too

[@ondrejizsof6558]

This is reality without lies.

[@pain002]

A live elephant is worth around 1.6million$ over his lifetime of about 40 years in tourism. When he is killed he is worth 50 thousand. The previous president of Botswana calls the reintroduction of trophy hunting a disgrace. But please tell me how this is the best way of conservation

[@viniciusmagnoni6492]

In 40 years of hunting, the worth is way bigger than 1,6 million. But I don't expect a leftist to understand that.

[@viniciusmagnoni6492]

In a ridiculously low rate of three elephants shot per year, in 40 years they would worth 6 million, while three elephants alive would only generate 4,4 million.

[@viniciusmagnoni6492]

Besides that, increasing population of elephants would disturb the environment balance. As it is becoming even more ideal.

[@sachinraghavan4556]

At least one politician is compassionate towards animals.

[@Allanapolis83232]

Trophy hunting doesn’t help protect endangered species. In fact, it just makes it worse.

[@daniloabreu6038]

They literally showed you the data..... SMFH

[@normanwells2755]

When you think does it hurt your head?

[@rdm3373]

I think you are confusing trophy hunting with poaching

[@SafavidAfsharid3197]

​@@daniloabreu6038selective data.

[@AFROPOLYMATH]

I'm a proud African. And we do not need petty cash from trigger happy westerners who don't understand our wildlife. No lion should die just to buy food and pay rent for other lions in captivity. We can't afford to lose any more of our precious wildlife just to satisfy your egos. Trophy hunting does not help anything, it makes things worse and I will never die until it's impossible in the whole Africa to do that. I respected The Economist until now, clearly, some conservation paid you guys to lie. South Africa is now taking things into its own hands, soon... these animals won't be privately owned!

[@ankur.mahajan]

Sadly, the hangover of Colonialism hasn't gone away for these westerners. They still believe that they can dictate how former colonies should function. If they really wanted to help, they could have come up with some constructive solutions rather than destructive ones. But, since they are white, they can get away with anything.

[@AFROPOLYMATH]

@@ankur.mahajan That is so true, and I wish they could have the stomach to ask us how we think conservation should be? They should ask us, how they can help rather than dictating how they should help us!

[@MeirelesdeSousa1]

That thought is really important! If westerns want to help, it should be with solutions to fix the problem and not with money to satisfy their own ego. It should be with well applied education so the whole continent can thrive in the long term.

[@normanwells2755]

Your solution will see almost all this land turned over to cattle, sheep and goats with some scattered subsistence cultivation. No room for animals that don't pay their way or can't be eaten. Your choice, I don't care. There will always be some in zoos and in videos.

[@ezekiekr8475]

If I may ask, which country do you come from?

[@TonnyTK100]

It only shows how primitive we still are.

[@LoverTheMusic1]

Not primitive, rather a part of nature

[@davej5244]

@@LoverTheMusic1 killing for survival and food is natural. Killing for fun or "sport" is not natural, maybe only for white people

[@__eee__]

Never thought anybody woud ever say this but.... "BASED THE ECONOMIST". Respect for this

[@sachinraghavan4556]

Normalized animal cruelty sure is based.

[@user-dh7lm3jg9n]

That is a lie leave nature alone they will recover

[@King_of_the_Dragons]

And the poachers?

[@dingbat7289]

The nuance is refreshing

[@Fuzz1994tps]

Elephants are one of the few animals along with humans that are both self-aware (they can recognize themselves in the mirror) and able to mourn for their dead. Unlike cattle, shooting an Elephant is shameful.

[@chickengeniussingapore210]

Appreciate for your feedback! And thanks for watching for more info.... T•E•X•T~~M•E...... +•1•4•0•5•4•7•0•9•0•9•9.......

[@pacosouviron175]

if shooting 1 elephant saves 5. Whats the big deal?

[@Fuzz1994tps]

@@pacosouviron175 How does shooting one elephant save 5?

[@Mothobius]

@@pacosouviron175 there are 8 billion humans. If shooting 1 doesn't affect the population? Are killers really that bad?

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

@@Mothobius Society is built on violence.

[@homieonice374]

Idc what this video or anybody in the comments has to say, this is not helping anything but the hunters egos. SMFH

[@Random_People_that_subscribed]

The Economist please don't post videos which no research was performed on but a biased view from 1 perspective. As that women doesn't know what she's talking about. As a Namibian I can 100% confirm that tourism is one of our main income not trophy hunting.

[@code5829]

Not true. It doesn’t matter that you live there. 5% comes from photography tourists on safaris while 95% come from trophy hunting

[@Random_People_that_subscribed]

@@code5829 Ow my word can you read what you are typing. There is something called an annual budget which is announced annually of the income the country produces and trophy hunting wasn't mentioned once. By the way tourism is not photography. Since it seems like common sense isn't common anymore

[@OMGUKILLKENNY2]

@@Random_People_that_subscribed Can you tell us what percentage of tourism goes directly into conservation vs what percentage of hunting goes into it. Tourism might produce more money for the country as a whole, but if those funds do not get used to pay for conservation then hunting is still needed to cover those costs.

[@birchthebirch4593]

Now this is a conversation worth having

[@noladent395]

You are so gullible

[@birchthebirch4593]

@@noladent395 why's that ?

[@steviejohnson378]

No it’s not

[@birchthebirch4593]

@@steviejohnson378 why's that ?

[@LucaMatoke]

Hunting is bad no matter how best you defend the lunacy.

[@FatGouf]

Your feelings: "hunTing iS BaD!" Fact: ever since legalize trophy hunting was introduced back in 60's the number of white rhinos went from near extinct 1,800 to 18,000.

[@johnpeterson9602]

@@FatGouf It was not worth it, numbers doesn't matter

[@FatGouf]

@@johnpeterson9602 numbers dont care about your feelings.

[@johnpeterson9602]

@@FatGouf Tell me, what is the point of keeping those animals alive if those devils can commit their wicked acts. Proachers are bad for the animals, but atleast normal people that I can recognize as such. The animals won't go extinct anyway, there so many zoos full of those animals, also countries like Kenya were able to keep there animals alive without sacrificing them to the cancers of our Western civilization.

[@Hello-hz7gj]

@@FatGouf There where like 50 Java rhinos left, now it's 57, without hunting. They still can be saved. It doesn't make that much difference if it's 1000 or 10000, they're still alive.

[@normanwells2755]

6:12 I always wondered how those agreements were worded. They would be slightly different in various countries.

[@brucepeek3923]

Africa wide its wild animals are in trouble - but not in trouble because of sport hunting. The biggest threat to them comes directly from poaching first of all, and secondly from the former living space of the animals being turned into farms, and housing developments. best Bruce Peek

[@infomotionfittv837]

I have unsubscribed.

[@user-nv7bw7qy5u]

I will never understand why watching an animal die is more pleasurable to some people than watching it exist in peace with its family and young. Disgusting.

[@rynovanderwesthuizen6932]

That is not the argument. The people are starving, so they poach the animals to extinction. So someone needs to stop them from doing so. Someone needs to protect the animals numbers and habitat. The only way to do so in the majority of africa is to use hunting to fund these anti-poaching efforts. That is the argument. Africa and the rest of the world is not capable of living in complete harmony.

[@normanwells2755]

I have to agree, you will never understand. Because you are invested in emotion rather than using logic.

[@user-nv7bw7qy5u]

@@normanwells2755 being a spiciest narcissist is the lazy choice. Why care when ignorance is bliss.

[@normanwells2755]

@@user-nv7bw7qy5u Whatever you say Adolph. I'm sure you enjoy being both.

[@dolly_jiaa]

as the woman said in the video "People romanticize animals, they're beautiful but destructive and they can be the reason why our kids can't go to school."

[@SimonWilliamsonhunting]

Whilst as a hunter I totally agree and have the utmost respect for Marina; unfortunately this film shows to much use of a vehicle to find animals.

[@Thecircustapes]

That's just how they hunt out there, they drive around the concession and look for tracks or animals then dismount and stalk in on foot.

[@sachinraghavan4556]

Which proves that hunting is no longer a survival necessity.

[@AlexanderTheEvenGreater]

@@sachinraghavan4556 Actually it is, indirectly. The money paid to the local communities by the trophy hunters is life saving. Of course, if there is corruption, and the money doesn't go to either conservation or local communities (ideally it would go to both), then you shouldn't pay it. Simple as that. Otherwise, absolutely support the conservation and the African people.

[@bobbob8866]

It is just different psychology among people. Killing brings unmatched thrill to some but sadness to others. Serial killers must have similar psychology except that the victims are humans. I imagine serial killers make great soldiers. They truly have the inner drive on the battle field.

[@timedone8502]

It’s really like tourism. The site and local people may not be able to maintain it without funding from tourists. In this case the money from hunters theoretically helps conservation efforts. Without them, the local people would resort to killing those animals anyways.

[@noladent395]

Nope. Faulty reasoning. If they have a vested interest in protecting the animals for tourists who want to see the animals alive, they will generate far more revenue, and the animals will continue to exist, the species protected.

[@peterapps1514]

@@noladent395 Except that tourists who want to see animals alive also want comforts and convenience that they cannot get in what are curretly hunting areas. If photo tourism was viable in what is now hunting areas, the photo tourism operators would have taken them over already.

[@noladent395]

@@peterapps1514 No. Tourism can be made viable anywhere. You are paid by the hunting industry.

[@peterapps1514]

@@noladent395 Repeating the same falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true.

[@normanwells2755]

@@noladent395 You said that 6 months ago. Have you converted any hunting areas over to viable and sustainable tourist spots yet? Even where photo tourism is viable local people see the need for culling when numbers of problem animals get too high.

[@quintinmason3723]

Create food forest an water conservation thru permaculture you can feed the people an nature an have a circular economy that benefits everyone

[@quintinmason3723]

@@ishanmukherjee5194 anyone who puts there minds to it

[@animalguyanimalguy270]

@@quintinmason3723 Yea, but who is going to pay for it you don't have enough money for that.

[@quintinmason3723]

@@animalguyanimalguy270 ya rite just keep on complaining about it then... there are always solutions if your issue comes down to money in this day in age then you not being resourceful

[@noladent395]

@@animalguyanimalguy270 You protect the animals like Kenya, bring in millions of dollars from safari and photographic tourism, then you have the money

[@rynovanderwesthuizen6932]

@@quintinmason3723 Who will pay to keep the elephants from your plantations? Or lions? who will convince the locals to stop poaching because they are starving? Clearing land for other types of farming is hypocritical. Wildlife needs habitat, and it needs money to keep that fences up and bad people out. That is where hunting comes in. It pays the salaries of the rangers and pays for maintenance

[@adamyasingh3713]

By this Logic even Human Trafficking will help the local population and Conservation?

[@T66789]

Yeah

[@T66789]

Oh nvm

[@sachinraghavan4556]

Yes, but you'll hear people say "No cause it's conveniently wrong when humans are the victims."

[@johnsitumbeko732]

Depends on how much revenue would go to the remaining people's wellbeing

[@King_of_the_Dragons]

How are they people?

[@vitorapollinario9335]

Great journalism. I expected something like about the lack of international corporative on narco traffic. The only way to tackle complex issues in poor country in Africa, Asia and Latin America is by a international force task. But this are not gonna to happen, the US are much interest in army rebels close oil station in middle east country's, and EU are looking to they on nose, like always.

[@dumisaninhliziyo1072]

how trophy hunting can help conserve African Wildlife, what a sarcastic title, why don't we have a reverse scenario, allow us Africans to come to Europe for trophy hunting. let's balance these injustices

[@rasakiakb2392]

first of all, erope doesn't have that many exotic animal as a trophy. and Europe is rich enough to fund and mantain wild space purely from tax. and furthermore there's really not many rich african trophy hunter to made it as a viable economic option to wild conservation. it's all been answered if you really watch the vids.

[@drytonsown]

Your more than welcome to come to Europe & hunt for trophies. Most European countries have some form of Trophy Hunting industry as an example you can hunt deer in Scotland for around £1000 per animal.

[@dumisaninhliziyo1072]

@@rasakiakb2392 I did watch the video and what I'm aganist as well is that hegemony of Europe where they put themselves in a place where they feel like they are helping Africa. who said African wildlife need to be conserved by European money as if we ourselves don't know how to conserve what we have without their money. we have our own knowledge systems and we know how to conserve OUR animals without European influence. Actually European and Chinese are the ones causing confusion

[@likira111]

@@dumisaninhliziyo1072 Instead of "should Africans or Europeans fix this", how about just scientists and whoever is studying these animals and conservation regardless of where they're from? ESPECIALLY if one group has more know how and the other has more resources, they will need to cooperate. I've heard many complaints about patronizing non Africans making problems worse, and yes that needs to be fixed, but we also can't have a world where if someone is in a tight spot and someone else wants to help they're scared to or get turned away out of pride.

[@dumisaninhliziyo1072]

@@likira111 the moment you talk about scientists then u have to talk about rationally, empiricism reliability replicability and all those core values of science. to be a 'scientists' according to the western model u must poses those core values and those values systematically relegated indigenous african knowledge systems to the non scientific zone. so at the end it will be skewed coz the same people who glorify trophy hunting in African are the same people who poses the qualities that scientific reasoning dictates. they should just let Africans conserve their animal species the way the did centuries before the white man stepped his foot of African soil. it's not like Africans don't know how to conserve they do, they have knowledge systems, myths, beliefs, practices that enabled conservation of animals and plant species on the continent. thus why when the Europeans came they found animals some they had never seen on African soil, if African ddnt know how to conserve then the Europeans wouldn't have found any animal

[@avatar1436]

媒体讲的都是片面的，甚至会有很主观的信息，不去完全地相信一个媒体所传达的信息，综合考量并有基于自己利益的推断。

[@robertolacarrubba2003]

What a lion thinks about trophy hunting: "What are you willing to do, little man, so that you can feel at least a little superior to me, shoot me with a rifle and take a picture with my corpse? Well, you really disappointed me"

[@coop3814]

Before this video, I was firmly against trophy hunting. However, having been exposed to the economics of this situation, I see that having established trophy hunting zones are far more beneficial for the fight against animal extinction than not having them

[@noladent395]

This video is full of falsehoods. It's essentially a hunter propaganda video. You don't protect animals by killing them for fun, and that money doesn't go to the locals. It goes into the pockets of the outfitters and corrupt government officials. You protect animals by setting aside large areas of habitat and having lucrative safari and photographic tourism like Kenya has done.

[@coop3814]

@@noladent395 I'm not a hunter myself, so I'm not interested in defending them. But, based on the data presented regarding the animal population growth in these countries, it seems to me that both are objectively successful methods of protecting the existence of these animals. The ethics and morality of it could be argued, yes, but the effectiveness of it seems sure.

[@davej5244]

@@noladent395 Exactly, it's almost laughable how bias this video is. Botswana, the country next to Namibia, had a 5-year hunting ban on elephants. Not only did their elephant populations increase (the highest in Africa), but they also made more money enhancing photo tourism and safari lodges experiences. They also fail to mention the unethical canned hunting of endangered species such as lions, cheetahs, and elephants, in Namibia as well as South Africa. They really played on white-man savior ideology here to justify immoral behavior. Feeding all those school kids would cost less than 100 dollars a day, a simple feat if it wasn't for droughts, low-yields, and expensive food imports. This would be mostly manageable if it wasn't for colonialism, apartheid, and white people taking advantage and buying up all the land. Today, a handful of white people own over 95% of the fertile land and over 85% of all private land.

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

@@noladent395 Yet even in Pakistan it's been a success. Canada and America have arguably the best and most successful conservation system which is primarily funded by Hunters, Anglers and Fisherman. For the average state/province conservation funding, 80% comes from that group. For some states it can be 100%. Once you add federal funding, which may be due to national parks, or grants to the state/province conservation effort. You're still at 60%+ of funding coming from that group. This does not even include the work done by hunter organizations like the rocky mountain elk foundation which has protected or enhanced 8.6 million acres by the end of last year. That is more land area than the Netherlands. Kenyan Wildlife service manages 8% of Kenya's total landmass. That's where all the parks, reserves and sanctuaries are. That is equal to 45.5 thousand square kilometers. The RMEF has protected or enhanced 35.8 thousand square kilometers. That is just one hunter organization, Kenya has nothing on that. Maybe if all the animal loving hunters are killers screaming crowd would actually go outside, go donate to conservation and participate in conservation, we can discuss a different system. I don't see that happening though.

[@marius165]

Wow. I had no idea. I do now! Thanks The Economist!

[@ottobena]

What a ridiculous argument for killing. None of the points mentioned explain why killing is necessary to maintain a healthy wildlife.

[@DifferentGames16]

Watch the video until the end before commenting

[@ottobena]

@@DifferentGames16 I did watch. It's all about the money flowing in. And the act of killing is not helping in anyway.

[@ankur.mahajan]

They just want to justify the unjustifiable.

[@akrusi]

@@ottobena because the killing was always in existence! Either poachers, villagers or trophy hunters, but there was no control or protection. By designating hunting areas, you in turn create conservation zones. These zones are funded by trophy hunting and protected by the group's administrating them. You go from free-for-all killing to now only killing 2% of any population, or less. Is it perfect, no, but it's so much better than outright ban or no controls at all. As stated in the video.

[@spacetoast7783]

Finish watching the video and you'll get your answers.

[@docthebilly]

They tried to make it look glossy but it surely isn't.

[@georgecarolyn386]

INVESTING IN CRYPTO NOW SHOULD BE IN EVERY WISE INDIVIDUALS LIST, IN SOME MONTHS TIME YOU'll BE ECSTATIC WITH THE DECISION YOU MADE TODAY..

[@samxena2804]

You're right ma,

[@samxena2804]

That is why I had to start cryto trading 2months ago with expert mr George Rodney and now am making benefits from it.

[@hellenjairus9519]

Natural, there’s a lot of math involved in cryto trading and forex trading,

[@hellenjairus9519]

but this is often presented in forms of daunting technical charts, indicators, patterns.

[@rebeccaishaku5757]

This is very correct.

[@Thecircustapes]

Sustainable use (read as hunting) is one of the best ways to protect wildlife. Look at the moyowosi game concession in tanzania where they hunt lions and yet they have an extremely healthy lion population as well as plains game with very little poaching and where does that money come from? You guessed it, Legal hunting! Or Zimbabwe's elephant management program, Zimbabwe currently has a population of around 100,000 elephants and most of the money to protect them comes from the license fees that hunters pay. And in my home state of New York management programs for whitetail via legal hunting has helped our whitetail numbers flourish.

[@pscholachagudda__]

World bank must give ammount instead of trophy hunting

[@Liza37hera]

This is exactly one of the videos that once again shows things aren't black or white. We need facts before making an opinion. We need to listen to community that's going be impacted and not just our "moral guide"

[@noladent395]

This video is full of falsehoods. It's essentially a hunter propaganda video. You don't protect animals by killing them for fun, and that money doesn't go to the locals. It goes into the pockets of the outfitters and corrupt government officials. You protect animals by setting aside large areas of habitat and having lucrative safari and photographic tourism like Kenya has done.

[@normanwells2755]

@@noladent395 Kenya's management has condemned tens of thousands of elephants to death. In the same period, Zimbabwe has gained about the same number through managed hunting.

[@ashleymargolis1907]

My Zimbabwe 🇿🇼 ♥

[@tiernanwearen8096]

Congratulations on overthrowing the tyrant mugabe

[@everettduncan7543]

​​@@tiernanwearen8096 The regime wasn't overthrown, but replaced with him a younger figurehead

[@densincomprehend8879]

Now they wanna protect the areas when its too late the damage is already done

[@seongjaekim7826]

This is enlightening. True, the world without trophy hunting is ideal. But the harsh truth is we will never reach that world. Demands will always exist. Then we need an alternative approach which may not resolve the problem but alleviate it to produce the best result from the given condition. The current model is hardly flawless, but as long as people strive to balance between the ideal and reality while the goal remains constant, we are slowly progressing forward. The argument of the video is precisely why i subscribed to the economist, take part in a severe contest between intelligence which press forward and an unworthy timid ignorance obstructing our progress.

[@AIWorks2040]

결점이 없다고 써야되는데.. 거의 결점이 없는것이 아니다 라고 쓰셨네요..

[@blueplanetwarrior1529]

Dan! My boy! you say that you like challenges, stalking in the bush. It just shows you prefer "action" over any thing else. My boy! instead of stalking an animal and killing it - you can as well venture into the bush to stalk poachers. It also brings out lot of action and challenges. More challenges in fact. Poor animals they are easy targets, so you chose the easier one. Take harder challenges my boy! Man! you seem to come straight out of a comic book. Do you watch cowboy movies a lot? Poor dude! you are so captivated by such that you merely want to imitate them. Man! step out of the fantasy world and come into the reality

[@angxin3216]

People who dislike this, provide some insightful ways for the conservation. It's real easy to just disagree on it without actually providing a solution.

[@kojimo1313]

Just like your comment. "People who disagree with me - bad". Here's an easy solution - we grow our own food and protect the environment + toughest sentences for people hunting animals. It's quite easy to offer a solution when you have plural brain cells. If you don't get that, ask a friend to explain it to you.

[@angxin3216]

​@@kojimo1313 Nope, you didn't get my words. This is a topic worth discussing/debating. Yet, many people wouldn't think thoroughly while objecting an idea/a cause. Wouldn't totally agree with your so-called easy solution as you should know that to develope agriculture, it requires lots of deforestation. Lost of habitat is the no.1 reason wildlife being decimated. "Protect the environment" is a very loose term that don't justify anything in this context, however. Harsh penalty is ideal, I am agree with that, but the implementation of it is highly doubted. In the vast area of undeveloped wilderness, catching criminals isn't easy. Moreover, with very little earnings, bribes are appealing to the officials. Undoubtedly, if other methods are effective, hunting as a way of conservation should not be encourage. Think in various perspectives and stop being cocky.

[@placeholderpictures8200]

@@angxin3216 Have to agree. I also don't like the argument "simply stop the expansion of farms" when you look at industrialized nations that have utterly torn apart their environments, it seems highly hypocritical for anyone from an industrialized nation to criticize African nations for something like making more farms.

[@mahalak4383]

Just check out india's conservation method where they increased the lion's population from the brink of extinction without resorting to such an underhand method.

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

@@mahalak4383 Pakistan's hunting based conservation system is world renowned. They decided to copy the Canadian and American system of conservation which is by far the best in the world.

[@sachinraghavan4556]

Hunting to fund conservation is no different than a hitman funding charity.

[@joelmonsion1639]

You are not aware that the conservation movements were started by sport shooters who wanted to ban commercial hunting (we now call them poachers) and regulate hunting for future preservation. Trophy hunters are not just the biggest supporters, they are the creators of conservationism. That is why the first and, to this day, largest conservation organizations, who regulate hunting laws, are run by trophy hunters. That is because trophy hunters are among the biggest nature hobbyists. There is no other groups that are more passionate about preserving ecosystems. I use to think that trophy hunting was a psychopathic sport too but that was before I understood conservationism.

[@briggsdalton]

@@joelmonsion1639don’t worry about him he’s uneducated and does this on every hunting video.

[@King_of_the_Dragons]

I’m not sure how an animal is a human.

[@Duarte_martins]

I see no issue with hunting antelopes like oryxes, perhaps not even with hunting large cats or rhinoceros if it guarantees that their numbers can increase once again. However, I cannot think of a moral argument that justifies killing elephants. Even if trophy hunting increases their numbers, surely elephants should be exempt from this utilitarian calculus due to their highly developed cognitive function? Elephants are as developed as the great apes or whales - surely they have some right to life? For the same reason, I certainly would not think it moral to permit the hunting of gorillas.

[@normanwells2755]

If they have no value, why would these countries put up with them?

[@27ankish]

If that is reasonable then we should also start the trophy hunting for humans as it is humans that harm nature and not other way around

[@toolbaggers]

Americans to themselves : Live free or die!! Americans to Africans : Slavery = job security

[@fatiguejras]

Go to Africa, live in a villge, preserve wildlife with your wallet and hands, then come back and speak.

[@casbot71]

The Yautja *[Predator* species from the movies] use the same justification for Human safaris.

[@oswaldrabbit1409]

Oh please. Get your moral bias about animals out of here, everybody, particularly the animals themselves will thank you.

[@noladent395]

@@oswaldrabbit1409 Get you anti-animal bias out of here. Thank you.

[@Geronimo-wq9eg]

Das Leben selbst ist nicht perfekt da es zu ständigen Anpassungen kommt und zwar unabhängig von Art und Form. Respektieren sollte man es dennoch da sich keine einzige Lebensform ihren Zustand auf dieser Welt gewünscht hat wie im übrigen auch alle Komponenten des Lebens mit allen Arten geteilt werden und zwar unabhängig von dem was der Mensch denkt was er ist. Dient eine Bejagung dem Zweck der Regulation von Populationen auf begrenztem Raum kann man ein Auge zu drücken. Dient das Leben allerdings als Wandbehang für den Menschen um sich dessen zu Rühmen haben wir in der Schule nicht aufgepasst wäre mein Gedanken zu diesem Thema denn eine Verbesserung der Lebensumstände für den Menschen ergeben sich hieraus auf keinen Fall.

[@blueplanetwarrior1529]

Not really

[@jojjosimon80]

Great movie explaining a complicated issue in a clear and concise way.

[@jamessparkman6604]

This video is not scientific fact it is a lie

[@MSMS-ug3zu]

It's a balanced reporting. Aid should be used for conservation of course, but more attention should be paid to family planning. The majority of these countries have high population growth rates. Poverty reduction measures need to be enhanced too.

[@sleyman149]

Ok if hunters really care about animals then why there use to be millions of elephants in 1999 century but now the is only a couple thousands yeah now that’s what I call disrespecting the animal

[@King_of_the_Dragons]

Poachers

[@sleyman149]

Still killing an animal should not be legal💀

[@sleyman149]

It’s just gonna make the animal go extinct

[@ankur.mahajan]

Sadly, the hangover of Colonialism hasn't gone away for these westerners. They still believe that they can dictate how former colonies should function. If they really wanted to help, they could have come up with some constructive solutions rather than destructive ones.

[@spacetoast7783]

You should have watched the video before commenting.

[@mazzymae1009]

We're waiting for you to gift us with your brilliant ideas.

[@coe3408]

So the Black South African lady complaing about the end of trophy hunting is simply brainwashed

[@normanwells2755]

The former colonies want hunting. The westerners who are trying to prevent hunting are the colonialists.

[@jasonmorales2818]

I will try to change your mind about trophy hunting just hear what I have to say before brushing me off. Some people will say trophy hunting vastly supports the people this Is a argument often heard but roughly only 3% of the money actually goes to the community the other majority goes to the trophy hunting outfitters and to the governments. Hunting older animals "out of their prime" does not allow the Introduction of new bloodline. Often trophy hunting targets already vulnerable going back to what I said about the animals bloodline you may see why this Is Impacting animals. Hopefully I changed your mind If I didn't you should think about the Impact of trophy hunting on animals.

Yes yes yes! More of this please! Educate the people!

[@Mr10029]

Feed them cattle and make the same deal with their local community leaders for conservation and no poaching.

[@MartinLichtblau]

How to fund conservation? ...

[@astriddeslandes2373]

TROPHY HUNTING DOES NOT BRING PROMISED ECONOMIC BENEFITS In fact, the UICN’s examination of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa revealed that it has relatively low economic returns given the amount of land taken up by game reserves. As for the benefit to local populations, the report found that even when game parks were managed locally, the returns were “insignificant, and cannot prompt them to change their behavior regarding poaching and agricultural encroachment.” Trophy hunting didn’t provide many salaried jobs, either. “The number of salaried jobs generated (15 000 all over Africa) is low considering that 150 million people live in the eight main big game hunting countries, and that hunting takes up 16.5% of their territory,” according to the UICN. “To summarise, the hunting sector uses up a lot of space without generating corresponding socio-economic benefits.”

[@noladent395]

Well said.

[@rynovanderwesthuizen6932]

Those areas would be void of any living animal if it is left to locals to do as they want. Hunting is not the most efficient, but it preserves millions of hectares from becoming cattle farms like it were +50 years ago. I would rather have a natural habitat that has little profit, rather than thousands of cattle farms or soy farms

[@alphestanley7194]

It’s stated in the video?

[@Entergalactic]

@@rynovanderwesthuizen6932 no it wouldn’t you primitive dvmmy, if it was the case it would have been destroyed thousands of years ago

[@HumanBohra]

I have a alternative, but no one would wanna agree it because it doesn’t give a adrenaline boost and requires pure consciences rich hunters pay huge amount to authorities for lettting them hunt, in return that amount is used for animal conservation.. Why cant those cruel hunters, directly pay amounts for conservation of these beautiful species??? Where is this humanity going…

[@gaminggubber3139]

Why are they cruel? I also think its a very shallow argument saying they should just pay directly. Its simply not how the world works and theres nothing wrong with wanting to get something for hard earned cash. Most people who make this argument has the option to donate themselfs but rarely do, its much easier to spend those cruel rich hunters money;)

[@gaminggubber3139]

On another note hunters are often the people who care the most about nature and concervation. at least the hunters i know hunt for much more than just killing animals and getting exotic trophies.

[@HumanBohra]

@@gaminggubber3139 “wanting to get SOMETHING, in return for hard earned cash”, your Something = Someone’s Life,,,, this is the summary of my shallow argument. No Hard Earned cash is worth more then someone’s life, Until people understand this,, Hunting will surely look like having benefits…

[@gaminggubber3139]

@@HumanBohra why dont you donate every penny to save animals then :D

[@HumanBohra]

@@gaminggubber3139 surely i would,

[@vishnusai5468]

What is the point of conservation of animals which will be killed eventually? Conservation should benefit the species and the ecosystem not some random rich kids. This video made no sense to me.

[@falconJB]

The system is for the benefit of the ecosystem even if some of them will be hunted more of them will be preserved. And the options are to preserve them with funding from hunts or to not preserve them at all, which option would you like them to take?

[@githanjikaluperuma3496]

Every sentient being has a right to live. No one gets to determine who stays and who goes.

[@normanwells2755]

Get the lions to stop eating the antelope and come back with that.

[@kyleolson9636]

So with about $200 million of worldwide revenue from trophy hunting, it would take a 6% increase to the UN budget, or 0.0002% of worldwide GDP, to replace all revenue from poaching so conservation can still take place.

[@placeholderpictures8200]

That's actually a viable alternative; the question is, will people go through with it? I'll believe it when I see it.

[@KalynaVang]

Great video.

[@abdullahiyusuf5552]

Complete BS. Corruption is rampant in Namibia, I guarantee you almost all the trophy killing fees will not go to conservation. If donations or allocated money won't go conservation efforts, what makes you think trophy killing fees might?

[@MemekingJag]

The thing about trophy hunting that foreign aid doesn't require, is it requires the financier to actually visit the country. It doesn't stop corruption, but it certainly makes it less common even in very corrupt countries because those rich foreign tourists actually can see where their money is going.

[@alexandratorres7359]

Your information is clear and objetive. I congratulate you

[@AkhyansuPattnaik]

It's so disturbing. there can not be wrong means to achieve the right ends because ends don't justify means. ends justifying means has led us to a situation where our development trajectories have become unsustainable. i understand the lack of incentive for local african population to preserve wildlife at the cost of their socioeconomic status but giving a passport to rich people to officially hunt animals is akin to be an accomplish in a crime of homicide because you want a better life for yourself.forced by their economic constraints african tribes buying into this model is explicable but why can't the rich western countries who are culpable for deforestation & poaching around the world simply pay african & asian countries a compensation for the maintenance of ecological services for the historical wrongs they have committed & for a more sustainable future? if the top 10% of rich people around the world can simply contribute to 1% of their net worth for conservation & upliftment of african people we would not need such contentious methods of conservation. instead of imploring those who benefit from all these exploitation the most we continue to protect the interest of the powerful few in the guise of helping the needy to a point where we're convincing the local tribes to accept legalised trophy hunting as a panacea to all their financial woes.

[@matthewgallant3622]

So, in essence it’s the capitalist activities that happen around trophy hunting that conserve the land and wildlife. The more I learn about the world the more of a Libertarian I continue to be. I’m not a hunter, but I knew there had to be more to it.

[@FriedrichBW]

It is always bad to advocate for human savage. Don’t you think so? Even though the long term solution (e.g. building local community infrastructure for tourism) is painstaking and costly, I still think it is not wise to promote this short sighted temporary solution.

[@guy1234484]

The problem with that is that while we’re all waiting for the long-term solution to be realised, what’s left of the populations of African mega-fauna are driven to extinction by poachers and others.

[@alparslankorkmaz2964]

Nice video.

[@maxmohamed9878]

It is obvious how old fashioned the Economist continues to be and so wedded to the colonial era now they are making justification for the killing of our precious animals.

[@dewaldt8104]

Well where else are parks going to get revenue to look after the animals. Tourism is at a all time low and is an unstable source of income. The government doesn't have money.

[@normanwells2755]

It is you who are wedded to the colonialist era by wanting to control how resources are managed in Africa.

[@nalindawijesekara2219]

So wild animals must live because of rich humans need to hunt them for trophies according to this. It is not a sustainable solution as most countries these are not regulated which leads to extinction of these animals in near future. Bottom line is killing animals cannot be accepted by any means. All those african leaders must find a more sustainable solution to keep wild life alive rather than trying to regulate trophy hunting

[@dewaldt8104]

Well our African leaders have problems such as poverty to deal with.

[@serpentmasterarmstrong2630]

Bro, Africa isn’t like America. Poverty and starvation is the counties biggest concern. Hunting helps feed people and keep protections up for species, until a better method comes along then that would be put into place but for now. This is the best way to persevere wildlife. Look at America we have a big hunting culture and our wildlife thrives.

[@ankur.mahajan]

This seems more like an advertisement for Trophy Hunting.

[@matthewchow4991]

Yeah but it could actually work because it brings in money and organization to the land, preventing the locals from killing the wild animals

[@SauravKumar-ze9qq]

@@matthewchow4991 same does cutting trees. Brings money. So many things bring money, why not do those as well

[@spacetoast7783]

@@SauravKumar-ze9qq We do all of these things.

[@SauravKumar-ze9qq]

@@spacetoast7783 Right. And is any of it justifiable? South Africa banned trophy hunting and is going in the right direction. Finding alternatives for income for these people and then I see this advertisement from Economist😑

[@emiliolorenzo9816]

@@SauravKumar-ze9qq Not every country is as rich as south africa (which still has a lot of problems), just take note that there are very few realistic alternatives for the land, given poaching and land development killing far more animals

[@miiigoreng]

Not forgetting that humans hunted throughout evolutions for sustenance in parts. Am alongside views that sustainability is important to maintain any habitat and surrounding. BUT Insatiable greed and misuse of powers on the other ends, paved ways to way colossal global issues during these times IMHO

[@nevinkgeorge]

Here's an 'alternative' - allow local indigenous communities who have been living in these areas for centuries to live there instead of creating markets that benefit domestic elite and white folk while excluding these communities in "protected areas." Fund conservation efforts led at the local level. And before all, initiate restoration efforts in the 'developed countries' to restore the flora and fauna lost at home instead of preaching.

[@nevinkgeorge]

@@ishanmukherjee5194 Indigenous people have been preserving our forests for longer than 'conservationists' or trophy hunters.

[@3zhu]

@@nevinkgeorge The problem now is that the ‘indigenous’ people if left on their own WILL raze the land and use it for farming and hunting in the modern world. Unless the world can be moved back several hundred years where locals are more or less isolated from outside world they will always choose to raze the land for farming to make money and grow food. Currently the land is worth more if used for farming of cash crops and food rather than left being natural. Trophy hunting provides a choice and chance for the natural land to be worth more than used fir farming.

[@nevinkgeorge]

@@3zhu take your point partially. But still don't think a system that continues to distribute benefits very unequally is close to a 'solution.' Change needs to be drastic and systemic, but at least don't set up a bad system and justify it by saying this is the best we could do.

[@greggashgarian8360]

I have many misgivings thinking about the apparently rational premise of this article while dealing with the various suspicions it provokes. I suspect that some wealthy hunting enthusiast commissioned the article to window-dress a contentious issue; I suspect some people in rich countries and poor profit from this industry more than we know; I suspect the benefits as regards conservation are exagerated; I suspect the benefits to people not directly involved in this industry are at best minimal; I suspect there is much hypocrisy in the declarations of the trophy hunters' desire to advance the cause of habitat and wildlife conservation. The Economist is never politically neutral, but its reputation for credibility and objectivity is not very well served here. Surely a better solution to conservation issues in developing countries can be found.

[@amydickman9678]

I really dont think this was commissioned, I think it would have the support of most conservationists knowledgeable about this topic. And while we would all like better conservation solutions, banning imperfect ones and imperilling wildlife would make things much worse.

[@bensonmuragekibe297]

White savior industrial complex

[@Thapanirmal]

Did I read that right? Hunting animals to preserve them? Sounds a bit contradicting lol 😄

[@noladent395]

Yes, and it's hunter propaganda and has a lot of falsehoods.

[@camm8642]

the focus shouldn't just be on lions

[@gauravayush5494]

Humans shouldn't be allowed to get that adrenaline boost from killing an animal. In a well regulated area/country of Africa it might be a sport but outside of it's just poaching or even worse, killing for fun. Does any of it sound Ethical!? ⚖️

[@riconaranjo]

I understand the economic incentives involved, but I can't reconcile the contradiction in allowing the killing of wild animals to fund their conservation. Should a country like Thailand promote regulated child prostitution in order to fund the protection of children? Seems like the same logic at play to me...

[@MemekingJag]

humans =/= animals. But it does make sense. You use proceeds from the hunting to help offset the dangers it places on the environment. Is it wrong to put a green tax on electricity, or should we not bother because it's hypocritical to both hurt the environment and try and save it? It's not so much a contradiction as it is offsetting the harm through taxing it.

[@pscholachagudda__]

BAN TROPHY HUNTING

[@stuffandnonsense8528]

A worthwhile video. Not perfect, but valuable.

[@noladent395]

Hunter propaganda, so it's not worthwhile