Re: BCWF-Ending trophy hunting could actually be worse for endangered species
Originally Posted by
Pemby_mess
Ok, i don't think I have an argument with that.
Is it enough though?
In BC, approximately 13% of our land base is protected, which is actually falling well short of many, more progressive developing countries. Even that, was starting to come under a lot of pressure by the previous political tenure. They themselves under significant financial pressure from parties with large economic interests in land use. The economic input from hunter's can't compete with that, when they are up against monied adverse interests, using economic justification alone.
I have a realistic example that would help us parse about all these competing land use interests, if you're interested. But I think the fact remains; if hunter's try to use economic arguments to advance what should be their primary focus, they will continue to lose debates with adverse parties.
I think the intrinsic value of wildlife and maintaining biodiversity should be the ultimate motivator in wildlife conservation in NA. The existing irony in NA is that non-consumptive users of wildlife (mostly people who just like viewing wild creatures - which is valid, as I also enjoy wildlife viewing), have somehow decided that by opposing our hunting heritage, they are somehow "protecting" animals. What they fail to realize is that large, charismatic mega fauna, in many areas exists SOLEY due to the conservation efforts of hunters, trappers and anglers. In essence the wildlife they want to protect from hunters would be extirpated or extinct had it not been for the visionaries (mostly hunters) a century ago, who developed a successful model for wildlife conservation. All people should have a vested interest in maintaining biodiversity, and promoting viable wildlife populations, without making the mistake of attacking our collective hunting heritage.
I won't always be young, but I can be immature forever