Is trophy hunting morally right?

Is trophy hunting morally right?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Only when it done to protect a species. I would have loved to hunt poachers in Africa.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't see why not.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and all you morons 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 moron. Your Facebook outrage informed opinion is useless on the subject and you may well consider hunting yourself for the betterment of the environment.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >He believes it lol

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        What kind of proof do you consider enough?
        https://www.perc.org/2019/07/18/the-role-of-hunting-in-conserving-african-wildlife/

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >It only encourages more poaching.
        No it doesn't. If some richgay 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 richgay 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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        more animals more poaching if you really want to eliminate poaching let them extinct all the animals checkmate africa.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Frick megafauna.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Wow, that guy even looks like a piece of shit.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No. Those homosexual dicklets need to be tied down and whipped. It would be a great idea to do a fakenpoaching scheme, where the gays pay and travel to get caught and tortured in the savannah

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The money they pay usually goes to some wildlife conservation.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Killing something smart as an elephant for anything other than desperate need is Black person tier

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I dunno. but morality can take a backseat sometimes if you really wanna do something

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      earthly hands wrote this post

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        whaddya mean?

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    only if they're hunting invasive non-domesticated species. lionfish spear fishing is based

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >only if they're hunting invasive non-domesticated species
      So being invasive is okay if they're slaves

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Or else you could just kill random humans

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >is it an invasive species
    yes
    >do you eat it afterwards
    yes
    >is it endangered
    no

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Is killing for no reason morally right
    This isn't a question that needs to be asked

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Reason: I want to

      Egoism wins again

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        "Want" is an excuse without a reason

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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?

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Only if you kill it with your bare hands. This rule makes almost every trophy hunter a massive overcompensating homosexual.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Trophy
    Nope. Never

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    NO

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    At least hunt an invasive or overpopulated species. Poor elephant

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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 frickers are mostly underwater so a b***h to try and hunt.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If something is a birch to hunt THAT should be considered the trophy animal.

        Fricking shooting a grazing elephant from the back of your Hilux is like scooping a "trophy" bass out of a bathtub with a net

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          A giant squid is a b***h 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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If something is too difficult, it loses appeal.
            Which makes the trophy hunting community moronic and completely not about trophies or hunting.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              how so? if something goes above a controlled thrill and into an unreliable pain in the ass with no assurances it loses appeal

              • 1 year 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 Black folk need to die violently

              • 1 year 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 year 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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Whether it's moronic or not doesn't change the fact there's a market for it and that it can be used to fund conservation.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >What invasive/overpopulated species would be as exciting or thrilling to hunt as an Elephant, or Lion?
        Russians

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Wild boars?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No but there are benefits to it such as supporting conservations and culling down numbers in some areas.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What do you do with the tail? Just have it laying around?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, that's what Tufts university does with the tail of Jumbo.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *