African conservation in the Guardian

[Irrelevant]

On the trail with the hunters who believe shooting big game can save Africa’s wildlife

The long read: One way to pay for wildlife conservation is to allow the rich to bag a few animals for high prices. But is it just an exercise in colonialism?

www.theguardian.com

 

[Irrelevant]

I find the lack of comments odd. The author paints a pretty hypocritical view of "hunting is conservation", yet provides zero alternatives, and appears forced to conclude that it's possible that "it" works. Hard for me to conceive of a better management strategy.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Not sure what you expected. Seemed like a typical anti "African trophy hunting" article to me. Hard to argue that their system doesn't work, even though it doesn't set well with a lot of people.

 

[Irrelevant]

Not sure what you expected. Seemed like a typical anti "African trophy hunting" article to me. Hard to argue that their system doesn't work, even though it doesn't set well with a lot of people.

1. Hunting is conservation as a topic isn't really mainstreamed very often.
2. The author, despite their best attempts, still concludes it's an effective strategy.
3. None of their points against hunting are wrong. It is entirely racist and feudal, and in many ways straight up represents the worst parts of hunting and hunters.
4. It sure as hell is a more worthwhile discussion than what's the best scope/caliber/bullet for a deer rifle or where can I find a 30" mule deer on public land in Montana.