- Apr 21, 2010
- 99,141
- 60,450
The sad reality is the only places that have healthy elephant populations are those that allow hunts. Eco hunters don't pay even one tenth what a real hunter will pay for an elephant. In the long run it helps far more elephants than it harms.
I get your point, but in my mind the only thing better than a dog is an elephant![]()
Don't get me wrong, i would never harm an elephant. In fact when i was working in Africa my company funded anti poaching patrols in our area, but, the simple reality is that where hunting of them is allowed there are elephants. Where hunting is outlawed there are few elephant, and the poachers run rampant. There is simply no money to fight them.
Tho I think the "eco-tourism" aspect CAN BE more than equal to the hunting revenues. Problem is -- SMART tourists don't GO to Zimbabwe. Even if all amenities are included.There's the problem.
Not even close. Eco tourists spend about 10,000 to 12,000 on a photo safari. A real hunt will bring in over 250,000 to the local economy. There is no comparison.
That's just 25 eco-tourists. Or one dead elephant. The numbers in GOOD, clean, welcoming countries can make up for it. Just NOT in Zimbabwe or Zambia. Or any number of elephant ranging countries where there's war raging now.
The hunt regulators are very careful about which animals can be killed, they will frequently have them kill the old bulls so that the younger ones can breed with the females to get a healthier strain. There is a tremendous amount of thought given to it in most areas. But i do agree it is a terrible thing to see one of them killed. They are truly magnificent creatures. When I was working there the poachers were going berserk and the government offered a bounty of 5,000 a head for them (that's for a dead poacher)
and we helped fund that program for five years.