Agreed, a very thoughtful post, and a pleasure to read.
I seem to recall that the rational for the idea of hunting dollars saving wildlife populations from extinction was based on the fact that the grazing wildlife competed directly with native-owned cattle and/or damaged crops, and therefore was of negative value to the local farmers/herdsmen. By attaching a value to these animals that accrued to the native peoples when (relatively) wealthy foreign sportsmen paid big bucks to come and hunt, the wildlife became a commodity worth protecting. I can't say that this has or hasn't worked out this way, just repeating an idea seen elsewhere. Seems plausible to me, though.
As for the rarity of a given species, it's quite difficult to determine what is or is not rare in some cases. Granted, no one would suggest that rhinos are abundant, but as stated in another posting, most species that are rare in one locale can be common elsewhere. My dental hygienist has very authoritatively stated to me that Black Bears are becoming increasingly rare and need to be protected from all hunting! I don't doubt that she sees few of them in her suburban Toronto backyard, but I think they're generally pretty safe from extinction. And yet the information she has seen to lead her to this conclusion is presented very convincingly by PETA et al. How would she know the difference? I continue my efforts to edumacate her, but a guy laying in a reclining chair with a mouthful of drool somehow fails to make the same impact as a multi-megadollar Anti campaign.
And why would we as Canadians go to Africa, or anywhere else exotic, to go hunting. I remember the thrill of my first turkey hunt here at home when they became commonly available for hunting. A whole new species, and whole new thrilling hunting experience! And this was for ONE species, that I hunted on my own back forty here at home. How can you wonder why a hunter would crave the lure of an exotic destination and numerous exciting new and unfamiliar types of game?
My $0.02.
John
I seem to recall that the rational for the idea of hunting dollars saving wildlife populations from extinction was based on the fact that the grazing wildlife competed directly with native-owned cattle and/or damaged crops, and therefore was of negative value to the local farmers/herdsmen. By attaching a value to these animals that accrued to the native peoples when (relatively) wealthy foreign sportsmen paid big bucks to come and hunt, the wildlife became a commodity worth protecting. I can't say that this has or hasn't worked out this way, just repeating an idea seen elsewhere. Seems plausible to me, though.
As for the rarity of a given species, it's quite difficult to determine what is or is not rare in some cases. Granted, no one would suggest that rhinos are abundant, but as stated in another posting, most species that are rare in one locale can be common elsewhere. My dental hygienist has very authoritatively stated to me that Black Bears are becoming increasingly rare and need to be protected from all hunting! I don't doubt that she sees few of them in her suburban Toronto backyard, but I think they're generally pretty safe from extinction. And yet the information she has seen to lead her to this conclusion is presented very convincingly by PETA et al. How would she know the difference? I continue my efforts to edumacate her, but a guy laying in a reclining chair with a mouthful of drool somehow fails to make the same impact as a multi-megadollar Anti campaign.
And why would we as Canadians go to Africa, or anywhere else exotic, to go hunting. I remember the thrill of my first turkey hunt here at home when they became commonly available for hunting. A whole new species, and whole new thrilling hunting experience! And this was for ONE species, that I hunted on my own back forty here at home. How can you wonder why a hunter would crave the lure of an exotic destination and numerous exciting new and unfamiliar types of game?
My $0.02.
John
