Cecil the lion, aftermath

[Baitac]

Beloved by who?
Had the lion not been poached, how many people here discussing said lion would have known of its existence? I think that's part of the 'why do you care so much (more) about the death of an otherwise unknown lion'? Especially when so many nameless, tagless, unstudied animals are poached all the time, here and there. Regardless of how anyone feels about Cecil, it's pretty easy for most people to feel that way because it's pretty easy to feel rather than affect any change. There are of course exceptions to that, even here in this discussion.
It was the perfect storm:
Majestic lion
Protected preserve
Corrupt locals
Smarmy American
Outrage culture of the internet
Dentistry
Good summary, Terra

I agree with you and Terra. Still, when I became aware of this event it bothered me for all the reasons you and Terra listed and I don't like it when people say that I can't be upset because there are better things to be upset about. I live to be upset! Don't tell me I can't be upset! ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/world/africa/american-hunter-is-accused-of-killing-cecil-a-beloved-lion-in-zimbabwe.html?_r=0

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Nestor:

 

Total cruelty is not the only salient factor, though. In terms of ecological impact and conservation, trophy hunting is worse. To be a trophy, the target has to be by default either very difficult to kill or very rare.

 

So we can say that cruelty to animal is wrong. But then we move into assessing whether cruelty to millions of factory farm animals is worse off than cruelty to one of the few thousands remaining animals of a species. After all, people don't trophy hunt raccoons or skunks or squirrels. 

 

As for the comparison, I think people probably have a general awareness of trophy hunting in African countries, but before Palmer and Cecil, they might not know that how common it is, or how it can involve things like guides, lures, and the wounded animal being pursued for 40 hours. I think the particular details of Cecil's slaying contribute to the attention just as much as the knowledge of the existence of trophy hunting itself. 

 

 

Terra:

 

You are absolutely one-hundred percent wrong in the contention that trophy hunting is somehow worse in terms of its ecological impact than factory farming. The reality is that the negative ecological impact of industrial animal farming is far worse for the environment by several orders of magnitude. It's not even close. Industrial animal farming is responsible for countless millions of gallons of animal waste sewage being deposited back into waterways, groundwater, etc. Waste from industrial feedlots helps contribute to the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, which is currently about 5,500 square miles - the size of Connecticut. A single "manure lagoon" accident in 2011 in Illinois resulted in the contamination of a local river that killed an estimated 110,000 fish. 

 

The sheer scale of industrial agriculture in the US, and its consequent ecological impact, simply far outstrips the exceedingly minor in comparison ecological impact of trophy hunting. The reality is, many of the animals killed by trophy hunters exist in such relatively small quantities that it makes very little difference to their ecosystems if they live or die. Ecologically speaking, Cecil's death doesn't even register. 

 

As for conservation - it's actually not even clear that trophy hunting, if part of a well-run, comprehensive conservation program, is actually bad for conservation at all. In fact, the opposite may very well be true. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which created the "Red List of Threatened Species" which is how basically everyone in the world is told if an animal is an "endangered species" or not, maintains that well-run trophy hunting programs can play a valuable role in species conservation efforts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reached the same conclusion, and determined that regulated trophy hunting can help reduce the risk of extinction for threatened species. The National Wildlife Federation - the largest, private, non-profit, conservation education and advocacy organizations - takes the same position. 

 

And so I go back to my original point, which you were trying to contest, which is - why such an overly dramatic display of exasperation? The thing people are complaining about (trophy hunting) is no worse, and in fact, probably much better (more humane, for sure) than a thing which they tend to actively support (which is industrial animal agriculture). If you only have the ability to take action against one of these, there's no question that you should be taking action against industrial animal agriculture, and not trophy hunting. I have no problem with those who oppose both, but a pretty big problem with those who only oppose the trophy hunting, and actively participate in a far more egregious moral wrong. To those people - shame shame! 

[JonSnow4President]

Nestor:

 

Total cruelty is not the only salient factor, though. In terms of ecological impact and conservation, trophy hunting is worse. To be a trophy, the target has to be by default either very difficult to kill or very rare.

 

I can't site statistics, and maybe I have some bias coming from a line of hunters, living around hunters, etc.  But as far as I am aware, the vast, vast, vast majority of trophies are Whitetail (or similar) deer, which are in no way "very" difficult to kill or particularly rare.  I have a friend and coworker who recently spent thousands on a local exotic deer ranch, with a more or less guaranteed kill it was so densely population.  Your extreme trophies of course are, but you're really talking about the Ferrari's of the world and decrying cars when you're talking about trophy hunting in general.  

[TerraPrime]

Re: Nestor

 

The pollution effects of industrial animal husbandry is indeed very bad. But pollutions can be cleaned up and mitigated, if enough effort were put into it. For species on the brink of being endangered or which are already endangered, every individual lost is a severe blow to the survival of the entire species, due to issues of genetic diversity and effective breeding populations to sustain themselves. Once a species goes extinct in the wilderness, there are very, very few mitigations available. Just about the only way to preserve a species that has gone extinct in the wilderness is to hope to raise enough individuals from captivity and then successfully re-introduce them, but that will give you an immense bottle-neck selection problem for the re-introduced species. 

 

I think assuming that trophy hunting can be a well-regulated process with oversight based on ecological impact of the hunt is rather far-fetched, given that the facilities in question are already stretched thin trying to curtail poaching, as well as the not-so-uncommon practice of luring animals away from protective reserves. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

So on the one hand you have trophy hunting which is responsible for say 10% of endangered species deaths. This practice assigns a clear economic value to animals, thus incentivizing land owners to breed and maintain a population of the species in question. It is regulated and where regulations are breached remedial actions are possible.

On the other you have poaching, which accounts for say 90% of endangered animal deaths. It assigns no economic value to the maintenance of a breeding population of the animals, as the poachers simply migrate to another untapped area once the target animals are exhausted in a particular region. It cannot be regulated and economic conditions are unlikely to change sufficiently in the next 50 years to remove the incentive for poaching in Africa.

So the outrage at trophy hunting should rather be directed at poaching, if the concern is about species survival, rather than emotion.

I am not personally a fan of trophy hunting, but given the world we live in it is likely a necessary evil to preserve at least some endangered species for our grandchildren.

[TrueMetis]

At this point I have so little faith that we're going to actually manage to stop these extinctions I say we start collecting as many genetic samples as we can to reintroduce eventually via cloning.

[JoeyBanana]

The most ridiculous argument for trophy hunting is that it's somehow their manliness that conquered nature and somebody needs to stay vigilant and practice. All the libruls and do-gooders will get eaten by predators because they are too nice to them, after all, and somebody need to make sure humanity survives.

 

Chest beating, basically.

 

And this plays a role in why people are so upset. It's not a terrible act for convenience or out of necessity but vanity.

[wolverine]

 

 

 

Re: Swordfish

 

Trophy hunting is indeed a small percentage compared to poaching. However, trophy hunting is typically done by foreigners for entertainment reasons, whereas, for poaching, while immoral and unethical, are at least done mostly by locals who are attracted by the profit due to suppressed economy with not that many attractive alternatives. It is the moral difference between the starving people stealing a truckload of bread versus a rich person taking a single pastry. It is, I think, the similar reason why we might feel less enraged at hunters who hunt for the meat versus hunters who hunt for just the trophy. 

 

On a more practical level, poaching is endemic and requires systemic reform of local authorities to enforce and patrol the areas. In contrast, trophy hunting can perhaps be reduced in popularity by sheer social and peer pressure in the foreign countries from where the trophy hunters come. 

 

But trophy hunting is regulated, legal, and restricted.  Many times you can only take mature adult males that will not affect the population.  In fact, it may help the population since there will be more game available for actually breeding and reproducing animals.  Even hunting here there are buck/male/mature only zones where the wildlife departments would like to see an increase in population.

[wolverine]

The most ridiculous argument for trophy hunting is that it's somehow their manliness that conquered nature and somebody needs to stay vigilant and practice. All the libruls and do-gooders will get eaten by predators because they are too nice to them, after all, and somebody need to make sure humanity survives.

 

Chest beating, basically.

 

And this plays a role in why people are so upset. It's not a terrible act for convenience or out of necessity but vanity.

 

 

Have yet to hear that argument till just now.  If anyone truly believes that, they are a moron.

[TerraPrime]

 

But trophy hunting is regulated, legal, and restricted.  Many times you can only take mature adult males that will not affect the population.  In fact, it may help the population since there will be more game available for actually breeding and reproducing animals.  Even hunting here there are buck/male/mature only zones where the wildlife departments would like to see an increase in population.

 

I give conservation sites the benefits of the doubt that they are managing trophy hunting responsibly. Or, at least, as much as they can to balance the need to sustain the conservation site and the need to preserve the animal population. The question is how well can they enforce these protections and how well can they stop the illegal hunts and poachers. I think it's not beyond reasonable to say that the demand for trophy hunting is probably going to exceed the supply, and the black market guides and illegal hunts do take place from time to time. 

[JonSnow4President]

The most ridiculous argument for trophy hunting is that it's somehow their manliness that conquered nature and somebody needs to stay vigilant and practice. All the libruls and do-gooders will get eaten by predators because they are too nice to them, after all, and somebody need to make sure humanity survives.

 

Chest beating, basically.

 

And this plays a role in why people are so upset. It's not a terrible act for convenience or out of necessity but vanity.

On some level, hunting does make me feel more "manly." (although that's far from the largest reasons I hunt) However, no one would argue that it's about the survival of humanity.  Survival of traditions, maybe, or a survival skill should it ever be needed, but not vital for human survival.  I'd love to see a sane person make that argument.

[HexMachina]

Hmmmm, not sure this person is really aware that this doesn't make big game hunting sound any more palatable in the minds of those who think sport hunting is an objectionable hobby. "I loves me some killin'!"

http://abcnews.go.com/International/idaho-big-game-hunters-defend-actions-amid-controversy/story?id=32861235

So she's doing it for the adrenaline buzz? Um, couldn't she find a way to get that buzz that doesn't involve killing?

[wolverine]

 

I give conservation sites the benefits of the doubt that they are managing trophy hunting responsibly. Or, at least, as much as they can to balance the need to sustain the conservation site and the need to preserve the animal population. The question is how well can they enforce these protections and how well can they stop the illegal hunts and poachers. I think it's not beyond reasonable to say that the demand for trophy hunting is probably going to exceed the supply, and the black market guides and illegal hunts do take place from time to time. 

 

 

But that is poaching.

[Humble AK]

I think, regardless of whether there is a benefit to trophy hunting or not, it is an issue when someone goes out of their way to kill another creature, possibly in a cruel way that does not result in instantaneous death, just for the fun of it. When someone goes up to a dog and just shoots it in the face because they think that would be an entertaining thing to do, it's objectionable. Hunting down a lion or other animals, not because you need the meat, but because it gives you joy to arbitrarily terminate another creature's life, is pretty awful for the observer with any degree of empathy. If the animal's species is near extinction, and/or the hunter paid vast sums of money for doing this, it adds insult to injury. The attitude of the hunter, the uncritical arrogance of what they are doing and the total disrespect to another creature's life, is very difficult to stomach.

Naturally, factory farming and slaughter houses are very bad things too. They should be dealt with as well. Humans do not require animals to be slaughtered in the manner they currently are in order to survive. The only things that industrial meat production really provides is convenience and a cheap price and a larger profit margin for the industry - these are not necessary things, and if anything demands more regulation, certainly this is an area that needs it.

But as has been said many times, this is not an either or issue. Right not the focus is on trophy hunting. That deserves criticism. Perhaps some kind of difference will be made, hopefully for the better. You never know. But just because the spotlight is now on this issue doesn't mean the other is forgotten about or suddenly irrelevant to people. Even in this thread it has been a big part of the discussion, so clearly both issues are related and on the minds of many people.

I don't think either of these issues will be effectively dealt with in the near future. The cultural attitude is not quite in the right place. But I do think that as our civilization advances and we technologically and socially grow, we'll more and more have the luxury of empathy and understanding, and then take measures to try to better the world for all creatures. And things like trophy hunting and industrial meat production will effectively be dealt with. At least I hope that's what happens.

[Hayyoth]

 

I give conservation sites the benefits of the doubt that they are managing trophy hunting responsibly. Or, at least, as much as they can to balance the need to sustain the conservation site and the need to preserve the animal population. The question is how well can they enforce these protections and how well can they stop the illegal hunts and poachers. I think it's not beyond reasonable to say that the demand for trophy hunting is probably going to exceed the supply, and the black market guides and illegal hunts do take place from time to time. 

Zimbabwe had excellent conservation practices prior to the land confiscations. A system of private game parks geared to tourism and, yes shock horror, big game hunting. They're largely gone now and poachers have decimated the big game and local subsistence farmers looking for a meal have hunted everything else. I'm sure this has all been discussed to death already but big game hunting, westerners paying good money to hunt older animals well past their breeding prime, will have a strongly net benefit in conserving stocks in a well run private park system. The alternative is to leave it all to African governments to look after.

[awesome possum]

Oh, FFS. What is up with this? Talk about being unaware of what's going on around you. Here's yet ANOTHER American doctor with a fetish for turning a living creature into a pelt for his den:


http://heavy.com/news/2015/08/jan-seski-lion-hunter-doctor-pittsburgh-pennsylvania-practice-md-photos-kills-illegal-zimbabwe-gynecologist-oncologist-wife-family-fine/?b2np=d


Please, PLEASE tell me this is an Onion article.

 

This has been going on for so long there was even a throwaway line in Jurassic Park II about it.  The big game hunter is asked why he came to the island when he was making money in his career as a poacher and his reply was something like, "I grew tired of babysitting rich dentists."

[TerraPrime]

 

 

But that is poaching.

 

Technically yes, but not the same qualitatively as poaching done by locals. Poaching by locals are done for profit, because they sell the pelt, or body parts, to others. Illegal hunting by trophy hunters is a form of poaching yes but they do it for their own trophies. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

What does the purpose of the poaching matter to the species survival?

[TerraPrime]

What does the purpose of the poaching matter to the species survival?

 

It doesn't. But it matters as to whether a particular form of poaching is amenable to being reduced. To correct the economic situation in some of these African countries so that poaching is no longer profitable, or to regulate the consumers of poached animal parts to remove the incentives, are both harder, imo, than limiting trophy hunting. Therefore, conflating the two types of poaching doesn't really help us.

[Fragile Bird]

The vast majority of the poached material goes to Asia, particularly to Vietnam and China for use in medications. How about sanctions on countries who don't crack down on poached imports flowing across their borders.

That includes rare plants and birds and various fish species as well.

China symbolically crushed a few tons of seized ivory, but the amount was relatively small and only represented a small fraction of poached wildlife that gets sent to China.