Are there any circumstances when you think it would be ok to kill an endangered animal
Answers
Answered by
0
Because it was eating an endangered plant.
Har. Har.
Seriously though, to raise conservation money through selling a trophy hunt.
Photo safari tourists won’t pay like hunters do. Photo and experience tourists tend to want a cozy glamping lodge (is glam-camping a word now?) For 2-3 days at a stay for under $300 a night. Photo safari tourists generally won't spend a lot. In contrast, a high end hunter may pay $70,000 USD for a 21 day excursion:
Those big fees get nibbled up into permit costs that pay for park guards and habitat protection, and pay local people a livelihood for the length of the tourism experience.
In a protected area, if you cater to those low profit margin photosafaris you will be bulldozing a portion of your habitat and putting in generators and pavement to provide the glamping lodge. But if, instead of a photo/experience guest, you get a guy or gal who is whackadoodle excited about hunting, they will live in a tent, go offroad, and keep your protected area wild while funding your needs. A friend of mine who has been a CITES delegate (the group that oversees international endangered animal trade) told me about how an African country's representative demanded not to have limits put on their conservation hunting because the funding stream was so important.
Similar to the in the wild (in situ) circumstance, we have the captive bred (ex situ) hunts. Canned hunt, captive hunt, call it what you want but daaayyyyum people will pay to shoot non-breeding male antelope.
And that funds their reproduction. As we rapidly change our planet a number of species exist only in captivity and the only way to keep them alive is for them to generate money because a single animal keeper hire is $45,000 a year. Zoos do not have the capacity to do it all, and relying on future technology to revive a species from a frozen cell line is expensive and lengthy to the point where it is not a realistic strategy except for a few specific cases. These animals’ survival need to be funded right away.
Hunters pay.
Without money
captive stocks die out and
wild areas are exploited in an uncontrolled way.
As a non-hunter, I can't understand the motivation. I don't even like killing invasive lionfish when I freedive even though I know they are horrible .
Har. Har.
Seriously though, to raise conservation money through selling a trophy hunt.
Photo safari tourists won’t pay like hunters do. Photo and experience tourists tend to want a cozy glamping lodge (is glam-camping a word now?) For 2-3 days at a stay for under $300 a night. Photo safari tourists generally won't spend a lot. In contrast, a high end hunter may pay $70,000 USD for a 21 day excursion:
Those big fees get nibbled up into permit costs that pay for park guards and habitat protection, and pay local people a livelihood for the length of the tourism experience.
In a protected area, if you cater to those low profit margin photosafaris you will be bulldozing a portion of your habitat and putting in generators and pavement to provide the glamping lodge. But if, instead of a photo/experience guest, you get a guy or gal who is whackadoodle excited about hunting, they will live in a tent, go offroad, and keep your protected area wild while funding your needs. A friend of mine who has been a CITES delegate (the group that oversees international endangered animal trade) told me about how an African country's representative demanded not to have limits put on their conservation hunting because the funding stream was so important.
Similar to the in the wild (in situ) circumstance, we have the captive bred (ex situ) hunts. Canned hunt, captive hunt, call it what you want but daaayyyyum people will pay to shoot non-breeding male antelope.
And that funds their reproduction. As we rapidly change our planet a number of species exist only in captivity and the only way to keep them alive is for them to generate money because a single animal keeper hire is $45,000 a year. Zoos do not have the capacity to do it all, and relying on future technology to revive a species from a frozen cell line is expensive and lengthy to the point where it is not a realistic strategy except for a few specific cases. These animals’ survival need to be funded right away.
Hunters pay.
Without money
captive stocks die out and
wild areas are exploited in an uncontrolled way.
As a non-hunter, I can't understand the motivation. I don't even like killing invasive lionfish when I freedive even though I know they are horrible .
Answered by
0
there are many punishment for killing endangered animals....these are:
**The penalties for these violations can be a maximum fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both, and civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation may be assessed.
**it was also illegal to kill them and laws were imposed to stop these acts....
the circumstances of killing these animals may be :
The animal is sick, and may spread disease, and cannot be treated.
The animal poses an immediate threat to a member of another even more endangered species.
the animal has faulty genetics and needs to be removed from the gene pool to ensure the genetic integrity and diversity of the population
the animal is a non-breeding individual that is inhibiting the breeding of other individuals.
**The penalties for these violations can be a maximum fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both, and civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation may be assessed.
**it was also illegal to kill them and laws were imposed to stop these acts....
the circumstances of killing these animals may be :
The animal is sick, and may spread disease, and cannot be treated.
The animal poses an immediate threat to a member of another even more endangered species.
the animal has faulty genetics and needs to be removed from the gene pool to ensure the genetic integrity and diversity of the population
the animal is a non-breeding individual that is inhibiting the breeding of other individuals.
Similar questions