Botswana MP proposes lifting elephant hunting ban
africageographic.com
africageographic.com
If they can raise money for conservation by combining their culling activities with trophy hunting I think it is a win for everybody. This can turn a pure cost-centre into a revenue generating activity with the income applied to other desperately underfunded efforts like Rhino conservation.
I support hunting for food, but don't support trophy hunting unless it is part of a culling program or part of removing problem animals.
>Chobe is practically overrun with elephants
And the proposed law will not fix that, hunting would only be allowed outside preservation areas.
I like the final line of the article:
>Mr Guma therefore said government should swiftly act on how best to resolve the human/wildlife conflict and that the lift on the hunting ban and shooting of elephants in areas not designated as game reserves could be remedial to the crisis.
Obviously killing elephants (any animal really) in large numbers is a big problem on many levels. Transporting elephants is also difficult and expensive, and more importantly you need someplace to put them. Most of the other big game reserves in Southern Africa also have problems keeping their elephant numbers in check. Where would you take them?
> And the proposed law will not fix that, hunting would only be allowed outside preservation areas.
I haven't been up there in a couple of years, but the fencing around Chobe is spotty at best, the entire riverfront is unfenced (at least the part you get to see as a visitor), so I don't think there is really a big restriction on the Elephants' freedom of movement. I am guessing this is one of the reasons why they can cause so much damage to the crops of local farmers, they aren't really fenced inside the game reserve properly.
Targeting the elephants outside the park does more to alleviate the farmers' immediate problem, but its the same population of elephants (in the broad sense, not the herd sense) inside and outside the park.
There is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of them are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular animal and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor this little fella [5][6].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-Poaching_Fo...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander
[3] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust
[5] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp...
There's also an elephant population problem in Botswana, so as sad is it may be, these measures are necessary.
To begin with, poaching is hardly a problem there since you have clean government and punishment for poaching is draconian.
He disclaimed what he said with we won't like it (he's right). In Botswana you can buy a very expensive license to hunt Elephants. It's strictly controlled and you have a government representative monitoring you at all times and you get one try.
Since so much of Africa is in turmoil Botswana has an overabundance of Elephants (those smart animals can sense where they're safe and migrate en masse to Botswana, which is a problem for the environment) so that I can understand where he's coming from and it's not that black and white.
All that said: Yeah, I fucking don't like it. For starters: Elephants are just awesome creatures in so many respects. If I would have to describe them with one word this would be Zen.
I also do not understand where the challenge is. You have some super high tech, monstrous weaponry and shoot such a huge animal. Hell! If you look for a challenge hunt field mice, not elephants.
Shooting elephants, legally or not, indicates to me unhealthy sociopathic tendencies in a person.
In no way do I want to discourage people to follow your suggestion (which I think is awesome) and there's no doubt that poaching is a huge problem in big parts of Africa.
I just thought I could add some personal experience to the discussion.
On a side note: If you ever have a chance to visit Botswana by all means: Do it. It was a life changing experience. And go camping with a tour operator, instead of staying in (very expensive) lodges. Not only is it far more affordable, you actually get to stay deep in the game parks. Lodges are outside, since commercial operations are not allowed in the (strictly controlled) parks. You can go individually, when you have a reservation, but only get to stay at the camp site near the entrance.
Source: Visited Botswana in April
> Mr Guma said smallholder farmers living along the Botswana/Zimbabwe border fence had struggled for years with elephants that regularly invaded their land and destroyed their crop
It's because elephants are currently causing actual problems for rural citizens of Botswana.
It funds conservation, which decreases poaching, which is better for literally everyone involved including the animals and the poachers.
I believe it also tends to be very controlled and directed so the effects can be planned.
Elephants can be a huge, dangerous, nuisance (apparently) to farmers who are trying to have enough food to eat. That’s just one example.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-h...
The money doesn't end up where it should and the oversight is minimal.
The answer is that most people don't care about animal suffering.
That said I try to reduce meat consumption and I buy as clean as possible. Organic makes sense when it comes to meat because of animal welfare and because it tastes much better. I also eat "lesser" parts and I love offal. I believe that when we kill an animal for food we should eat everything and not just the filets and entrecotes.
I agree with you that mass meat production is an atrocity and one of the biggest moral human failings.
There are alternatives, but they don't scale and are obviously more expensive.
If factory meat becomes the only available option I'm out.
The "humans are omnivores" appeal, I think you'd agree, commits the naturalistic fallacy. There are things humans can do, and you might even argue were "designed" to do, that nevertheless we condemn as wrong, like killing, stealing, and using physical abuse to have one's way. Perhaps by "humans are omnivores" you meant that it's more difficult to eat healthy without animal products, which is undoubtedly true, but nothing out of reach or even especially difficult for everyone above a certain socioeconomic status.
If you agree that that part's gone, all that remains is "I like it".
I agree but I'd like to add a disambiguation. Factory farmed meat should be stopped, factory produced meat (i.e. with no live animals as inputs) would be pretty great.
If we could manufacture meat without animal suffering at all that would indeed be pretty neat.
Of course I just picked some at random. I more or less ordered them from things your probably do to things you probably do not. Yet all are things that I can find somebody in the world who will think you are strange.
The point is who are you to pass judgement on the likes/dislikes of others. This is a large world and it is very hard to find objective answers for likes.
If animals spoke in the hunter's native language we'd probably stop hunting or killing them because they could adequately express their fear and anger at being killed against their will. As it is, their running away and animal noises fall on deaf ears.
And yes, I don't eat dog meat (or any meat) for this reason.