There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
05-22-2016, 03:52 AM( This post was last modified: 05-23-2016, 01:49 AM by Polar )
(05-22-2016, 01:23 AM)Pckts Wrote: I'd hate to believe that the best chance of saving lions or any species would be killing them....any one of them.
I don't buy into the fact that hunting will generate massive contributions for conservation and in turn, it's a good thing. Killing and Conservation are contradicting things, Eco-tourism generates massive revenues, the money needs to be distributed far better before we declare "monitored hunting" a secret weapon in the protection of an apex predator.
I find it sad that somebody like Packer feels that way, I think it shows just how hopeless he must feel fighting for the rights of the animals he loves so much. I'm sure it goes against his natural instinct but he thinks it could be a better way of getting them the protection they need.
I guess at this stage, animals are lucky to have what little land they have left, if hunting needs to fall under the umbrella of wildlife protection, so be it. But that attitude will have to change at some point, the sense of entitlement and destruction of natural resources will have to stop, all species will gain REAL protection once that happens.
For a long time, we humans have deemed ourselves superior to every other existent life form. This thread was made to find the reason or reasons why humans think this, as well as other behaviors deemed special to modern humans.
Agreed. It is better to just let natural selection take its place instead of "helping" the animals by repairing their injuries or killing them.
In our past (at least in the societies/tribes respectful of nature), whenever a human would cross paths with a injured/nearly-dead animal, the human would pay his respects and leave the animal to its future fate.
Now it seems like we want to actively "help" animals heal whenever we cross paths with one, even though it harms the injured animal's risks of foraging/hunting/grazing in the future (and possibly harms natural selection if the most fittest specimens find it near-impossible to hunt a single prey.)
We, as humans, do not understand the impact that our actions display upon animals and nature in general. Conservation groups' efforts are only about preventing others from poaching and "helping" the animals. In other words, they would rather employ more forest guards and rangers (i.e. more control of natural landscapes/parks), than to leave the place alone.
The short and most beneficial answer to conservation?
Another question would be: then won't that increase the frequency of poachers/hunters in the area? That would be the hardest question to answer.
A lot of society's various "illegal profits" are geared towards the absorption and consumption of rich animal materials such as ivory, fur skins, and various bones. Most of the meat is simply thrown away because, as Peter mentioned earlier on an AvA forum, we already have a surplus of meat; why produce any more?
We (and most societies) do not use all of the animal as Native Americans and some African/Pacific natives do.
To the question in hand, the best way to reduce poaching/hunting is to either:
-Gauge profits so that rare animal materials don't earn income or profit in any way. (which will prevent the poachers/hunters from getting incentives for trying to sell that rhino horn or lion tooth.)
-Totally eliminate the monetary system and corruption of society. (Best solution to most world problems in general, including this.)
These ideas would best solve a huge reduction in poaching/hunting, in my opinion.
