Yes and all you retards saying no obviously haven't researched it at all.
Trophy hunting is almost the only source of income of anti-poaching organizations and a huge boon to conservation in the countries it happens in. Not only for funding, but for culling of hyper-aggressive males or males past breeding age that keep fighting younger healthy males. It's a bad look for the guys who actually pay to go kill an animal that doesn't even recognize you as a threat but overall a huge positive to conservation.
If you don't like hunting, you're a retard. Your Facebook outrage informed opinion is useless on the subject and you may well consider hunting yourself for the betterment of the environment.
It only encourages more poaching. It's also hard to argue that killing any animal with dwindling population and habitat is going to help keep the numbers up. I'm all for killing to eat or feed people but not just to say you've done it.
>It only encourages more poaching.
No it doesn't. If some richfag pays $500k to shoot an elephant, then that money goes to the nature preserves so they can fund anti-poaching measures and other methods of conservation. The only thing encouraging more poaching is the Chinese desire to make their dicks bigger from magic rhinoceros pills. >It's also hard to argue that killing any animal with dwindling population and habitat is going to help keep the numbers up.
When a richfag buys a hunting loicense for something like an elephant or lion, it's not just a free pass to go shoot the first one he finds like it's durr season here in the US. It's almost always for a particular individual animal that the park rangers have decided needs to be culled for the health of the population as a whole. Usually this is an older male who is past breeding age, but is preventing younger males from having access to the females. Either that, or its done as a way to euthanize an animal that has cancer or some other chronic illness or injury. >I'm all for killing to eat or feed people but not just to say you've done it.
The meat is almost always donated to the local Africans. They don't just leave a giant elephant carcass to rot.
What do the Inuit say about narwhal horns? Speaking of history, I heard vikings would take the things and market them as unicorn horns in Europe. I think that's funny.
Sorry for the late response, mods gave me a 3-day because they deemed that whale picture "not safe for work" yet OP's pic is literally a dead elephant.
I don't think they really thought much about narwhals other than thinking of them as a resource. The inuit dwindled in numbers from the little ice age massively and lost many of their beliefs and traditions since they told all history orally and if they didn't like or need something, or just forgot it, it was left out of their history and disappeared.
Narwhal horns weren't much more than a material for them, they were used to working with horns, bone, and tusk as they didn't have any wood besides driftwood. When the first modern europeans came the inuit thought they were ghosts and came out with spears that were singular long narwhal tusks. There were around 6 of them and they each carried spears made of narwhal horn that were each worth thousands back in europe, and to them it was just a common toolmaking material.
They also used the narwhal horn to make knives - it was easier to work with than the small amounts of meteoric iron they had. It was used to make things that needed to be smooth, on the bottom of their dog sleds, which were almost entirely made of bone, they used smooth ivory to make them glide over the snow better.
We really only hear about European stories about unicorns because it was actually a fairly big thing in european mythology and they still practiced mythopoetic thinking, even when we had ships up there to discover the northwest passage they were still using the mythological greek stories of Thule / Hyperborea as guides to how it would be like at the poles, with them thinking that it was an open ocean instead of frozen ice floats. This was only several hundred years ago, historically a fairly close thing.
Morally right? idk
But in a utilitarian sense it’s a good thing because it’s how these nature reserves bring in a good chunk of their funding. Letting 1 guy pay five figures to kill an elephant is better than letting 20 poachers kill elephants without enough employees to stop them.
No. Those gay dicklets need to be tied down and whipped. It would be a great idea to do a fakenpoaching scheme, where the fags pay and travel to get caught and tortured in the savannah
I read that a lot but I've never seen any concrete proof. Considering how much money is invested into safari every year african megafauna should no longer be on the verge of extinction.
There is no material justification for cause, right, or wrong. And the world is purely material. You are chasing your own tail. The very idea that there is a need for reason and ethical consistency is itself entirely made up and neither optional nor needed nor anything, as it doesn't actually exist.
There is no material justification for cause, right, or wrong. And the world is purely material. You are chasing your own tail. The very idea that there is a need for reason and ethical consistency is itself entirely made up and neither optional nor needed nor anything, as it doesn't actually exist.
What makes you think you have any rights then, since they are not a material thing?
no, it's a giant house of cards that governments prop up to get noticed amongst rich people. it doesn't bring in nearly the amount that it's purported to, nor do the amounts that actually go toward conservation that much to begin with.
I don't know, on one hand it's good on paper because it gets rid of old animals past reproductive age and provides funds for conservation, on the other hand there's doubts that the money actually goes into conservation and then you also have to deal with douchebags like trump jr.
What invasive/overpopulated species would be as exciting or thrilling to hunt as an Elephant, or Lion? Closest I can think of are those South American hippos, and those fuckers are mostly underwater so a bitch to try and hunt.
A giant squid is a bitch to hunt too, but no one is really clambering to fight them. If something is too difficult, it loses appeal.
>What invasive/overpopulated species would be as exciting or thrilling to hunt as an Elephant, or Lion?
the hundreds of camels roaming the australian wilderness come to mind
[...]
Northern Australia has invasive water buffalo too which could make for a nice trophy. Foxes were introduced to Australia for the sole purpose of sport hunting.
Camels and buffalo might work but you would need a decent PR team to sell it, exaggerate the size and ferocity of the animals. Foxes are small and everywhere and are an awful choice.
Wild boars?
Boars. The problem is bad enough that you can do whatever you want to kill them too. Automatic weapons? Yup. Helicopter? You got it. TNT? Sure why not.
Boars are everywhere as well. There's no interest in hunting something like that in the trophy hunting market. Trophy Hunting is about an animal that is seen as dangerous, difficult but not impossible to hunt (at least having the perception of being so), and rare. No one is going to trophy hunt an animal that's found in almost every backyard in the world. It needs to be an animal that you could pitch as one of the Big 5.
how so? if something goes above a controlled thrill and into an unreliable pain in the ass with no assurances it loses appeal
1 month ago
Anonymous
>NOOOOO don't make me stalk the animal I'm gonna take out for hours like a normal hunter!! >what you mean 'come up with a strategy' to take it out in difficult environments? >planning? Wtf? >I just wanna be driven to the thing, aim and shoot it, then go home... 🙁
Comfort morons need to die violently
1 month ago
Anonymous
if they don't want to do that it's their prerogative. they have controlled environments, assurances and the appeal of slaying megafauna many times their own body weight. i agree it's cowardly but at the same time it gets a fair enough from me. i think it's silly to kill an elephant like that and act like a tough guy about it
1 month ago
Anonymous
>i'm such a badass look at this animal i killed because i'm such a skilled hunter >noooooo I can't hunt that it's too hard
trophy hunters confirmed for being giant pussies
>What invasive/overpopulated species would be as exciting or thrilling to hunt as an Elephant, or Lion?
the hundreds of camels roaming the australian wilderness come to mind
>What invasive/overpopulated species would be as exciting or thrilling to hunt as an Elephant, or Lion?
the hundreds of camels roaming the australian wilderness come to mind
Northern Australia has invasive water buffalo too which could make for a nice trophy. Foxes were introduced to Australia for the sole purpose of sport hunting.
Boars. The problem is bad enough that you can do whatever you want to kill them too. Automatic weapons? Yup. Helicopter? You got it. TNT? Sure why not.
As long as SOMEONE eats it, and it was sanctioned by an ecologist acting in good faith. Like if wolves are too numerous for how little forest there is left, we have no choice, but at least feed them to the white homeless or boil them down for dogfood
>Like if wolves are too numerous for how little forest there is left, we have no choice
The choice is to buy back surrounding land to create natural hallways between woodlands.
Only when it done to protect a species. I would have loved to hunt poachers in Africa.
I don't see why not.
Yes and all you retards saying no obviously haven't researched it at all.
Trophy hunting is almost the only source of income of anti-poaching organizations and a huge boon to conservation in the countries it happens in. Not only for funding, but for culling of hyper-aggressive males or males past breeding age that keep fighting younger healthy males. It's a bad look for the guys who actually pay to go kill an animal that doesn't even recognize you as a threat but overall a huge positive to conservation.
If you don't like hunting, you're a retard. Your Facebook outrage informed opinion is useless on the subject and you may well consider hunting yourself for the betterment of the environment.
>He believes it lol
What kind of proof do you consider enough?
https://www.perc.org/2019/07/18/the-role-of-hunting-in-conserving-african-wildlife/
It only encourages more poaching. It's also hard to argue that killing any animal with dwindling population and habitat is going to help keep the numbers up. I'm all for killing to eat or feed people but not just to say you've done it.
>It only encourages more poaching.
No it doesn't. If some richfag pays $500k to shoot an elephant, then that money goes to the nature preserves so they can fund anti-poaching measures and other methods of conservation. The only thing encouraging more poaching is the Chinese desire to make their dicks bigger from magic rhinoceros pills.
>It's also hard to argue that killing any animal with dwindling population and habitat is going to help keep the numbers up.
When a richfag buys a hunting loicense for something like an elephant or lion, it's not just a free pass to go shoot the first one he finds like it's durr season here in the US. It's almost always for a particular individual animal that the park rangers have decided needs to be culled for the health of the population as a whole. Usually this is an older male who is past breeding age, but is preventing younger males from having access to the females. Either that, or its done as a way to euthanize an animal that has cancer or some other chronic illness or injury.
>I'm all for killing to eat or feed people but not just to say you've done it.
The meat is almost always donated to the local Africans. They don't just leave a giant elephant carcass to rot.
more animals more poaching if you really want to eliminate poaching let them extinct all the animals checkmate africa.
Yes. Fuck megafauna.
What do the Inuit say about narwhal horns? Speaking of history, I heard vikings would take the things and market them as unicorn horns in Europe. I think that's funny.
Sorry for the late response, mods gave me a 3-day because they deemed that whale picture "not safe for work" yet OP's pic is literally a dead elephant.
I don't think they really thought much about narwhals other than thinking of them as a resource. The inuit dwindled in numbers from the little ice age massively and lost many of their beliefs and traditions since they told all history orally and if they didn't like or need something, or just forgot it, it was left out of their history and disappeared.
Narwhal horns weren't much more than a material for them, they were used to working with horns, bone, and tusk as they didn't have any wood besides driftwood. When the first modern europeans came the inuit thought they were ghosts and came out with spears that were singular long narwhal tusks. There were around 6 of them and they each carried spears made of narwhal horn that were each worth thousands back in europe, and to them it was just a common toolmaking material.
They also used the narwhal horn to make knives - it was easier to work with than the small amounts of meteoric iron they had. It was used to make things that needed to be smooth, on the bottom of their dog sleds, which were almost entirely made of bone, they used smooth ivory to make them glide over the snow better.
We really only hear about European stories about unicorns because it was actually a fairly big thing in european mythology and they still practiced mythopoetic thinking, even when we had ships up there to discover the northwest passage they were still using the mythological greek stories of Thule / Hyperborea as guides to how it would be like at the poles, with them thinking that it was an open ocean instead of frozen ice floats. This was only several hundred years ago, historically a fairly close thing.
Morally right? idk
But in a utilitarian sense it’s a good thing because it’s how these nature reserves bring in a good chunk of their funding. Letting 1 guy pay five figures to kill an elephant is better than letting 20 poachers kill elephants without enough employees to stop them.
Wow, that guy even looks like a piece of shit.
No. Those gay dicklets need to be tied down and whipped. It would be a great idea to do a fakenpoaching scheme, where the fags pay and travel to get caught and tortured in the savannah
The money they pay usually goes to some wildlife conservation.
I read that a lot but I've never seen any concrete proof. Considering how much money is invested into safari every year african megafauna should no longer be on the verge of extinction.
Killing something smart as an elephant for anything other than desperate need is moron tier
I dunno. but morality can take a backseat sometimes if you really wanna do something
earthly hands wrote this post
whaddya mean?
only if they're hunting invasive non-domesticated species. lionfish spear fishing is based
>only if they're hunting invasive non-domesticated species
So being invasive is okay if they're slaves
Or else you could just kill random humans
Yeah
>is it an invasive species
yes
>do you eat it afterwards
yes
>is it endangered
no
>Is killing for no reason morally right
This isn't a question that needs to be asked
Reason: I want to
Egoism wins again
"Want" is an excuse without a reason
There is no material justification for cause, right, or wrong. And the world is purely material. You are chasing your own tail. The very idea that there is a need for reason and ethical consistency is itself entirely made up and neither optional nor needed nor anything, as it doesn't actually exist.
What makes you think you have any rights then, since they are not a material thing?
Only if you kill it with your bare hands. This rule makes almost every trophy hunter a massive overcompensating gay.
no, it's a giant house of cards that governments prop up to get noticed amongst rich people. it doesn't bring in nearly the amount that it's purported to, nor do the amounts that actually go toward conservation that much to begin with.
>Trophy
Nope. Never
NO
I don't know, on one hand it's good on paper because it gets rid of old animals past reproductive age and provides funds for conservation, on the other hand there's doubts that the money actually goes into conservation and then you also have to deal with douchebags like trump jr.
At least hunt an invasive or overpopulated species. Poor elephant
What invasive/overpopulated species would be as exciting or thrilling to hunt as an Elephant, or Lion? Closest I can think of are those South American hippos, and those fuckers are mostly underwater so a bitch to try and hunt.
If something is a birch to hunt THAT should be considered the trophy animal.
Fucking shooting a grazing elephant from the back of your Hilux is like scooping a "trophy" bass out of a bathtub with a net
A giant squid is a bitch to hunt too, but no one is really clambering to fight them. If something is too difficult, it loses appeal.
Camels and buffalo might work but you would need a decent PR team to sell it, exaggerate the size and ferocity of the animals. Foxes are small and everywhere and are an awful choice.
Boars are everywhere as well. There's no interest in hunting something like that in the trophy hunting market. Trophy Hunting is about an animal that is seen as dangerous, difficult but not impossible to hunt (at least having the perception of being so), and rare. No one is going to trophy hunt an animal that's found in almost every backyard in the world. It needs to be an animal that you could pitch as one of the Big 5.
>If something is too difficult, it loses appeal.
Which makes the trophy hunting community retarded and completely not about trophies or hunting.
how so? if something goes above a controlled thrill and into an unreliable pain in the ass with no assurances it loses appeal
>NOOOOO don't make me stalk the animal I'm gonna take out for hours like a normal hunter!!
>what you mean 'come up with a strategy' to take it out in difficult environments?
>planning? Wtf?
>I just wanna be driven to the thing, aim and shoot it, then go home... 🙁
Comfort morons need to die violently
if they don't want to do that it's their prerogative. they have controlled environments, assurances and the appeal of slaying megafauna many times their own body weight. i agree it's cowardly but at the same time it gets a fair enough from me. i think it's silly to kill an elephant like that and act like a tough guy about it
>i'm such a badass look at this animal i killed because i'm such a skilled hunter
>noooooo I can't hunt that it's too hard
trophy hunters confirmed for being giant pussies
Whether it's retarded or not doesn't change the fact there's a market for it and that it can be used to fund conservation.
>What invasive/overpopulated species would be as exciting or thrilling to hunt as an Elephant, or Lion?
Russians
>What invasive/overpopulated species would be as exciting or thrilling to hunt as an Elephant, or Lion?
the hundreds of camels roaming the australian wilderness come to mind
Northern Australia has invasive water buffalo too which could make for a nice trophy. Foxes were introduced to Australia for the sole purpose of sport hunting.
Wild boars?
Boars. The problem is bad enough that you can do whatever you want to kill them too. Automatic weapons? Yup. Helicopter? You got it. TNT? Sure why not.
No but there are benefits to it such as supporting conservations and culling down numbers in some areas.
What do you do with the tail? Just have it laying around?
Yeah, that's what Tufts university does with the tail of Jumbo.
As long as SOMEONE eats it, and it was sanctioned by an ecologist acting in good faith. Like if wolves are too numerous for how little forest there is left, we have no choice, but at least feed them to the white homeless or boil them down for dogfood
>Like if wolves are too numerous for how little forest there is left, we have no choice
The choice is to buy back surrounding land to create natural hallways between woodlands.
No.