A debate over the future of trophy hunting points out that many effective alternatives to funding and supporting conservation have started to emerge.
Wildlife
December 3, 2019 – by Melissa Gaskill
Would banning trophy hunting actually harm conservation efforts, as some scientists argue? Or do other more effective approaches to funding species protections already exist?
Those are the conflicting positions taken over the past few months by dozens of scientists and conservation leaders, whose dueling letters in the journal Science have kicked off a debate over the future of the often-divisive practice of hunting big game for big bucks.
The controversy started this past August when an initial letter in Science — from conservation biologist Amy Dickman of the University of Oxford, four additional authors and more than 120 other signatories — argued that banning trophy hunting would “negatively affect conservation efforts” and that “hunting reforms…should be prioritized over bans.”
View original post 1,298 more words
Exposing the Big Game 
Killing wildlife is not conservation or coexistence, no matter what lies we use to justify it: need to satisfy a sporting bloodlust, local economies and local control, population control, prevention of conflicts with humans, culling, sporting, humane. Hunting legitimizes killing and increases poaching not the opposite. We have alternatives to killing wildlife and calling it conservation.