| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ecotourism vs hunting | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 28 2013, 10:23 AM (3,327 Views) | |
|
|
Nov 28 2013, 10:23 AM Post #1 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
You probably know how sick and tired I am of trophy hunting in Africa being considered conservation, When I relished there's a much better way to generate income for wildlife, Ecotourism. Yes, ecotourism is a true way to save animals, it makes way more money than hunting every year and doesn't require endangered species to die. So, what do you guys say? |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 28 2013, 10:45 AM Post #2 |
![]() ![]()
|
I think ecotourism is obviously a much better way to conserve wildlife, I've even contributed to it myself when I went on safari during my two-week stay in South Africa a few years ago (it was awesome BTW). |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 28 2013, 10:50 AM Post #3 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
You don't know how much I wish I could go to Africa Also isn't it great that Botswana is going to promote there ecotourism industry? |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Nov 28 2013, 12:15 PM Post #4 |
![]() ![]()
|
it's always great to promote ecotourism, but i don't think it's too different from hunting when it comes to saving a species: "ecotourists" (i don't know if it's the correct word) want the species to thrive so they can see them, hunters want the species to live so they can hunt a few animals. both have the same goal. of course, ecotourism should be prefered to hunt, especially when it comes to endangered species. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 28 2013, 12:32 PM Post #5 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
Ecotourism we all know is a far better alternative than hunting. Take a camera for example, use that to shoot a lion 12 times, and it's still there, plus you have a photo to remember it by. Use a gun, and the lion will be dead forever. See my point? |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Nov 28 2013, 01:04 PM Post #6 |
![]() ![]()
|
that's why i said ecotourism must be favoured to hunting when it comes to endangered species. however, let me make an example. let's say you are the owner of a reserve in Namibia, one of those huge areas that sometimes dwarves some European countries. you can choose to make it a photographic safari reserve, but also a hunting reserve, where people can come to see Africa's iconic animals and if they want shoot some species like impalas, wildebeests, gamebirds and such. however, in this reserve of your, you won't allow elephant hunting. this can be a good thing for everyone: the elephants will have a nice time, as the reserve has rangers that keep their eyes open for poachers and such, and it could also have a permanent water source (many reserves have that, often is man made). plus, people interested in ecotourism will have the chance to see these animals in the habitat. you might have to occasionally kill a problematic animal, like the one that for some reason becomes mad and starts attacking tourists cars, but other than that elephants are left in peace. so, if everything goes fine, you may find with a nice elephant population in your reserve. now, you might think of moving some of the elephants to other reserves to help the species. but what if your country doesn't have the resources to do that ? many african governments can't afford to move such large and social animals from distant areas. and even if it was possible, there would be reasonally lots of burochratic stuff to solve first, that might take a long time, and in the end you might actually not obtain the authorization to move your elephants to another area for some silly reason. so, unless you somehow manage to sneak with your elephants into another reserve and release them while no one's watching (if you manage to do that, please tell me how), you are forced to keep your elephants in the reserve. well, at least you know they won't end up in a place where corrupt rangers will sell them to poachers. but then you find yourself with another problem: your growing elephant population will soon start to damage the environment of the reserve, eating a lot of food of the other herbivores and destroying forests. and since you can't move them, and there's no natural control on them, you might have to take the decision of culling some of the elephants in the reserve. you can do that yourselves (or by the staff members). but you could also allow a limited hunting for the species: very few individuals would be taken every year, and that could help the genetic diversity of the population (by removing old animals, you give younger ones a chance to pass their genes). now, you might think that the men that pay a lot of money to come in your reserve and shoot an elephant is a donkeyhole (indeed, most people with money are like that): however, you can use that money to help running the reserve, your population problem is solved by people who are even willing to pay for that, and you still have the elephants for the ecotourists. remember that in order to hunt an elephant, people need to pay a very expensive license (in addiction to the overall safari cost) and not everyone can afford that. in theory, that could work. the problem is that is hard to put into practice ... |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 28 2013, 02:09 PM Post #7 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
Very well, I see your point, but if it were me, I'd just have a few elephants sterilized, how bad could that be? Plus, I would never want to see an elephant have to be killed. In fact, elephants are my totemic animal, ( it's not for real it's just a thing me and my school pals gave to each other) So I'd always look for the least harmful method Edited by Tyrannocanthosaurus, Nov 28 2013, 02:14 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Furka | Nov 28 2013, 02:16 PM Post #8 |
![]() ![]()
|
but sterilized animals would use resources that could have helped animals able to keep up the population. also, how do you sterilize an elephant ? i guess it's not something easy (not to mention expensive). |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Nov 28 2013, 02:25 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
It is much better to kill an animal than to sterilize it ![]() Sterilizing it means it still get to damage the environment, and elephants prived of sex can become extremely violent, sometimes raping other animals. And plus, it won't be able to pass its genes anymore. |
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Nov 28 2013, 02:28 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
Elephants, due to their massive size and the way their genitalia is, are extremely difficult - almost impossible - to sterilize without a very high risk of the animal dying from complications. And this is only males, let alone females. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 28 2013, 02:46 PM Post #11 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
*sighs* alright you guys win, mabye there is no other way |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Nov 28 2013, 03:44 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Well, of course. If there was another way, I'd surely take it. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 28 2013, 03:47 PM Post #13 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
But I don't understand, can't people reduce the population and then not have to kill anymore? |
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Nov 28 2013, 03:59 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
No, because animals do a little thing called breeding. They don't regulate their own numbers, and in the artificial environment we've created where the animals are stuck in small areas surrounded by people, we must perform the role of predator at times. |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Nov 28 2013, 04:00 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Well, reduce the population is equal to killing. You don't have an idea of the price it costs to move one elephant over several hundreds of kilometres. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pets & Wildlife · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups











