Talk

Unflip

MNHQ have commented on this thread

1 2 3 4

MNHQ have commented on this thread

AIBU?

most people that claim to be animal lovers are hugely hypocritical

84 replies

unlucky4marie · 29/07/2015 19:35

My sm is awash with people declaring themselves animal lovers and outraged by that lion. However I know that many of them eat regularly cheap meat and don't give a fuck about where it comes from.

Yes the lion thing is sad,but knowing what goes on every single day to provide people with vast amount s of cheap meat is millions of times worse. Maybe its just the UK where people are that hypocritical and everyone claims to be an animal lover. But actually they only care about a few cute animals that you would see in a zoo and happily stock up on bargain meat without a second thought.

OP posts:

Report

maninawomansworld · 31/07/2015 16:13

The killing of Cecil the Lion has caused global uproar. The perpetrator, a 55-year-old US dentist Mr Palmer, has received death threats, been forced into hiding and has closed his dental practice in Minneapolis. Protesters have gathered there, leaving stuffed animals and holding signs, including one that said: "Let the hunter be hunted", as police stepped up patrols.

But let us be clear, irrespective of your views on big game hunting this was not illicit wildlife poaching or trafficking, it was a legal and licensed hunt that went wrong. There are a few facts about hunting in Africa that are not being made clear by the politically correct, the urban thought police, the BBC and the media at large.

Humans have hunted since the beginning of our species. Indeed some follow the hunting hypothesis i.e. that human evolution was primarily influenced by the activity of hunting and this activity distinguished human ancestors from other primates and was responsible for our evolution.

But what of animal welfare? In 1989 US Aid began funding the CAMPFIRE Program The CAMPFIRE program aims to build the capacity of local African authorities to manage natural resources and wildlife in order to increase incomes of rural people and to help them provide for basic needs of their communities. The theory behind this is to place a commercial value on game, which in turn is paid back to the communities as revenue. The communities then protect this resource rather than facilitate poaching.

Since the inception of CAMPFIRE, USAID notes that land in Zimbabwe (where Cecil's killing took place) dedicated to conservation has more than doubled; to over 30% of the country, and that the elephant population has increased from under 50,000 to over 65,000. This period also saw the banning of the ivory trade under CITES, which is also credited with the reduction in the killing of elephants not only in Zimbabwe, but also in all of Africa.

90% of revenues generated by CAMPFIRE are from leasing sport hunting concessions to commercial safari operators. Sport hunting involves a wide array of animals. About two-thirds of this sport hunting revenue is from the licenses to hunt elephants, but Lions are also included. These animals are usually part of natural cull programme designed to match the animal population with the resources. USAID also says that such sport hunting licenses are strictly controlled and monitored by local authorities, and that revenues go directly to Rural District Councils, who decide both how the money is to be raised (whether to allow and manage sport hunting, for example), and how it is to be spent.

It is this system of sport hunting licenses that WENT WRONG and not Mr Palmer. The manipulation of these events is being used by those with an animal rights agenda and as is often the case animal rights should not be mistaken for animal welfare.

Critics of CAMPFIRE argue that U.S. tax dollars should not be used to support hunting in any way. Proponents of the program argue that by providing local communities with the means to participate in the benefits of wildlife management, including sport hunting, it gives local farmers incentives not to kill animals that eat or damage their crops. Thus, they argue, the program is an important means of addressing the conflicts between growing human populations practicing agriculture on communally owned lands, and wild animals that have destroyed crops and sometimes killed humans--conflicts that have led to the killing of elephants and the wide scale participation in and acceptance of illegal poaching on the part of the communities that might otherwise protect these animals.

The success of the animals under this program has been clearly evidenced but it seems there are many who would rather see the decline in habitat and of the animals than allow sport hunting which offends their urban politically correct sentiment.