Animal Advocacy Cecil the Lion's Death Angers the Planet

I do think that ALL trophy hunting is to be condemned, because it is the act of killing purely to satisfy one's ego. That's why its targets are the biggest, best looking, rarest animals. There is really nothing that is more morally reprehensible.

The fact that people pay big dollars to do it, money that may or may not fund conservation efforts, is another, separate, issue.

I mean, if I could pay $50,000 to a humanitarian organization and in exchange get a license to kill a human of my choosing, would that make the killing I commit any less morally reprehensible, any less to be condemned?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Second Summer
I do think that ALL trophy hunting is to be condemned, because it is the act of killing purely to satisfy one's ego. That's why its targets are the biggest, best looking, rarest animals. There is really nothing that is more morally reprehensible.

The fact that people pay big dollars to do it, money that may or may not fund conservation efforts, is another, separate, issue.

Banning trophy hunting would do more harm than good as far as conservation efforts are concerned. And what do you mean by "may or may not fund conservation efforts"? Do you have any evidence that the money is not used for this purpose? Your saying "separate issue" does not make it in fact a separate issue.
 
Banning trophy hunting would do more harm than good as far as conservation efforts are concerned. And what do you mean by "may or may not fund conservation efforts"? Do you have any evidence that the money is not used for this purpose? Your saying "separate issue" does not make it in fact a separate issue.

Conservation efforts need to be funded. Large areas of land need to be set aside for wildlife. None of that NEEDS to be done through money paid by hunters; alternate sources of revenue need to be found.

Right now, hunting (largely by rich Americans) is a major revenue source for many African countries. That needs to change, and it's going to take a wide spread and large scale effort.

You are completely ignoring the fact that trophy hunters kill precisely those animals who are the healthiest and strongest of their species. That is exactly the opposite of what conservation of a species is all about.

You are conflating a funding issue with a moral issue, unless you are actually claiming that if I pay $50,000 to a humanitarian organization for a license to kill a human being, that payment makes my act of killing a good thing.

How much of the approximately $50,000 that the good dentist paid to kill Cecil actually went toward conservation efforts? I bet not much.

Here's a thought: If trophy hunters are really conservationists in disguise, why is the thrill of the kill a prerequisite for them to fork over their money?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
How much of the approximately $50,000 that the good dentist paid to kill Cecil actually went toward conservation efforts? I bet not much.

Apparently, the money was paid to the two guides who lured Cecil out of the park. It seems that $0 went to conservation efforts.

Bustle
 
Conservation efforts need to be funded. Large areas of land need to be set aside for wildlife. None of that NEEDS to be done through money paid by hunters; alternate sources of revenue need to be found.

We have a funding mechanism now. I'll take your "alternative" method seriously when I see it working.

Right now, hunting (largely by rich Americans) is a major revenue source for many African countries. That needs to change, and it's going to take a wide spread and large scale effort.

I don't share your "moral imperative."

You are completely ignoring the fact that trophy hunters kill precisely those animals who are the healthiest and strongest of their species. That is exactly the opposite of what conservation of a species is all about.
Trophy hunters kill only a small fraction of the animal population, so the impact you cite is negligible.

You are conflating a funding issue with a moral issue "

No, I'm saying these two are related in the real world.

How much of the approximately $50,000 that the good dentist paid to kill Cecil actually went toward conservation efforts? I bet not much.

That's not the issue. The issue is how much do the fees paid by trophy hunters in general go toward conservation efforts.

Here's a thought: If trophy hunters are really conservationists in disguise ...

That's not what I said. The issue is whether their fees support conservation.
 
In the 1970s, a friend's father had heads of so many animals. And rugs of their skins, including a tiger, a bear, and a zebra. There were heads of everything.

Her father, the animal killer, was creepy anyway, and asked me if I liked the room with the dead stuffed things. I said, "No, and you remind me of the guy in Psycho." He thought that was funny, and told my dad.
 
I think on one hand it's positive that this case is raising a lot of awareness as it has received such a lot of media attention. I'm going to have to do some reading on the subject as I was very unaware of the issues around hunting and conservation so I want to be more informed.

Zimbabwe 'seeks lion Cecil's killer' Walter Palmer from US - BBC News

The Zimbabwean hunter who organised the hunt is saying he thought Cecil was an old male lion that he "believed was past his breeding age" but you would think as he was a professional hunter that he would have known better. ETA that he would have realised that the lion was Cecil.

We have a funding mechanism now. I'll take your "alternative" method seriously when I see it working.

I just saw people talking about it again on the BBC and a journalist was saying that driving up tourism was an alternative to trophy hunting in terms of funding conservation but one of the problems was that the areas where the big animals are being killed by farmers aren't places that tourists want to visit. At this point he was saying that there aren't any sustainable alternatives and that people should be thinking about how humans are destroying habitats for animals. Rather depressing.
 
Last edited: