Should people be allowed to hunt an endangered species if the profits go toward animal conservation?

Posted by: SamStevens

http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/

Vote
24 Total Votes
1

No

21 votes
0 comments
2

Yes

3 votes
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2015-09-09T22:03:39.9951887Z
Only if the endangered species are endangered due to natural selection.
triangle.128k says2015-09-09T22:05:01.9581141Z
I use a VPN anyways because my school district spies and collects information on anyone connected to their wifi.
triangle.128k says2015-09-09T22:05:09.1809604Z
Oh shoot, wrong poll.
benhos says2015-09-09T22:17:59.7006618Z
This is a really stupid poll, no offence.
SamStevens says2015-09-09T22:24:08.3938630Z
How is it stupid?
SamStevens says2015-09-09T22:26:41.9612474Z
Benhos, no offense was taken since it only took a couple seconds to create.
UtherPenguin says2015-09-09T22:34:05.3498214Z
The irony is unreal.
TBR says2015-09-09T22:38:56.9836990Z
Where else would this logic work. Its OK to break the law if you pay the fine?
SamStevens says2015-09-09T22:46:51.1405985Z
Good point, TBR.
Renegader says2015-09-10T02:35:08.0248694Z
What TBR said^
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-09-10T20:47:11.7155375Z
I can't leave a comment on my vote so here it is -- NO! This is a stupid idea. I mean seriously, before I go into data, let's just think about this logically: You want to HUNT & KILL an animal that is endangered in order to save the species? Isn't that just a bit counter-productive (outside of a diseased or rabid herd or something along those lines of course)? Now for the facts: There are 3 levels of endangerment (not counting vulnerable species classification). These are "Endangered", "Critically Endangered" and "Extinct in the Wild". Let's take just the lowest endangered classification of "Endangered"; this means that there is currently a 50%-70% reduction rate in the species population with a wild species extinction possibility in the next 20 years (or 5 generations) at no less than a 20% statistical probability. That is just the LOWEST rating on the endangered species scale. So with a 1 in 5 chance of dying off, you want to hunt them? Even if you spend the profits on "saving the species" you're still killing the species by hunting them. Look, if you took me to the casino to play ANY game or even offered me a lottery ticket with a life savings buy-in price, I would laugh in your face; if you gave me the same offer but gave me a 1 in 5 statistical probability to win, I would take that in a heartbeat. Why? Because those odds are amazing. So why would you not only agree a species has a 1 in 5 probability of dying off (at the LEAST), then increase those odds by allowing hunting of the species?
SamStevens says2015-09-10T20:49:11.3995047Z
I agree that the idea itself is stupid. Just wanted to access the DDO user base.
ak5432 says2015-10-28T11:56:31.5166306Z
The proposition of this motion will appear a little hypocritical. Hunting an endangered species in exchange for monetary supplements to conserve animals... Obviously, hunting an endangered species will greatly boost the rate of reduction for that particular species, thus rendering the "conservation money" useless. If there are no animals to conserve because of hunting, the money ultimately becomes useless. Even if the funds go to some other species, what the proposition are proposing is a jacked-up trade - the extinction of one species for the "conservation of another". This may sound legitimate, however, broadly speaking, giving people the right to hunt in exchange for money and therefore killing off a species and conserving another - even if the money GOES to the conservation of animals - when the environment and the endangered would be better off without taking any violent initiatives is a pointless act.
ak5432 says2015-10-28T11:56:54.6050746Z
The proposition of this motion will appear a little hypocritical. Hunting an endangered species in exchange for monetary supplements to conserve animals... Obviously, hunting an endangered species will greatly boost the rate of reduction for that particular species, thus rendering the "conservation money" useless. If there are no animals to conserve because of hunting, the money ultimately becomes useless. Even if the funds go to some other species, what the proposition are proposing is a jacked-up trade - the extinction of one species for the "conservation of another". This may sound legitimate, however, broadly speaking, giving people the right to hunt in exchange for money and therefore killing off a species and conserving another - even if the money GOES to the conservation of animals - when the environment and the endangered would be better off without taking any violent initiatives is a pointless act.
ak5432 says2015-10-28T11:57:16.7106997Z
The proposition of this motion will appear a little hypocritical. Hunting an endangered species in exchange for monetary supplements to conserve animals... Obviously, hunting an endangered species will greatly boost the rate of reduction for that particular species, thus rendering the "conservation money" useless. If there are no animals to conserve because of hunting, the money ultimately becomes useless. Even if the funds go to some other species, what the proposition are proposing is a jacked-up trade - the extinction of one species for the "conservation of another". This may sound legitimate, however, broadly speaking, giving people the right to hunt in exchange for money and therefore killing off a species and conserving another - even if the money GOES to the conservation of animals - when the environment and the endangered would be better off without taking any violent initiatives is a pointless act.
stacey.h says2015-11-15T23:30:34.6472380Z
That is ridiculous and counterproductive - that is simply giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Noone is winning.
RooseveltHuntConservation says2015-11-28T22:17:11.7028708Z
Route 1) No hunting........ No funding to employ wardens, no agency to arrest poachers. Good or bad for Rhinos? Route 2) Legal Hunting... Funding to employ wardens, agency made to arrest poachers. Good or bad for Rhinos? There is a reason why the United States, one of the most heavily hunted country in the world, has INCREDIBLE wildlife!!! GO Hunters! GO Wardens! GO Wildlife!
RooseveltHuntConservation says2015-11-28T22:17:30.1825295Z
Route 1) No hunting... With no hunting, there is nobody to pay for wardens. With no wardens, how safe are the rhinos? Route 2) Hunting.... With hunting, wardens become employed, who arrest poachers. With wardens, how safe are the rhinos?
RooseveltHuntConservation says2015-11-28T22:18:27.9863818Z
Route 1) No hunting........ No funding to employ wardens, no agency to arrest poachers. With no wardens, is it good or bad for Rhinos? Route 2) Legal Hunting... Funding to employ wardens, agency made to arrest poachers. With wardens, is it good or bad for Rhinos? There is a reason why the United States, one of the most heavily hunted country in the world, has INCREDIBLE wildlife!!! GO Hunters! GO Wardens! GO Wildlife!
Blueberry_Goose says2016-07-05T09:31:26.5273858Z
No. That would be self defeating.
Huxley1894 says2016-12-21T15:54:31.4343536Z
I may be misinterpreting this, but why would you hunt an animal if you are trying to save them?? I think trophy hunting should be all around illegal, I don't understand why someone would want to kill an animal to keep a part of it as a trophy, it is not something to brag about.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.