Ok you may not agree with me, not sure I appreciate being called deluded for having an opinion which doesnt align with yours. But anyway, ignoring that...
I'm not aware of the stats on population numbers but surely you would agree that its in the locals interests to have a larger than ideal population of X animal (in this case elephants) to ensure that when a foreign hunter who has paid north of $30k for the privelege of hunting such an animal there be one present for them to shoot?
- Have you ever been elephant hunting? The odds are greatly stacked against the hunter, the idea of guaranteeing an elephant of the size of the one shot is nigh on impossible hence the media frenzy. The only local interest is getting enough food in order to live, they have no interest in seeing a wealthy foreign hunter get his trophy. The benefit of trophy hunting is the fact that the hunting companies have to employ game wardens to police the area, the PHs are on hand when crop raiding occurs and can easily arrange permits at short notice, some of the locals are directly employed, part of the money raised goes back into the local community for schools, food etc, therefore the locals are less inclined to annihilate every animal for food.
I read a BASC article a while back about red deer in scotland and they apparently have the same issue, where the woodland conservationists are pushing for a reduction in deer number to allow struggling trees to grow above 18" tall and the hunting lodges are pushing back because they want to ensure a high population of reds for people to shoot. After all, if you spent a couple of grand on a weeks hunting (and some do) and then didnt see a dicky-bird you probably would be less inclined to make a repeat trip. - ? Have you ever been to Scotland, many rural areas rely on hunting for the income it brings, if you want to grow trees then many businesses will close. I believe that there is a balance and most estates do have management plans in place, the landscape of Scotland which we all love is a product of mans influence over many centuries. You can try to turn back that influence back but where do you draw the line?
In light of that line of thought I dont think its unreasonable to ask what basis the hunting lodge selects cull animals on? Are they just saying "Thank god, theres an elephant, quick shoot it" or are they pushing the hunters towards suitable cull beasts? From what you've said it sounds like they do and perhaps thats the really simple answer to the question in which case ok, cool, I'm fine with that. I dont know the answer, hence why I was asking. - Most stag stalking is based upon taking old beasts past their prime or stags with unwanted characteristics, or injury/sickness. In elephants it is highly regulated and permits fo females/males are released annually based on game counts.
I'm pro-hunting (hopefully obviously - otherwise this would be a pretty silly forum to join!), just my personal view on hunting is that you should do it for food, conservation or animal welfare reasons. Just my humble opinion, nothing more. I'm not saying trophy hunting should be outlawed or anything like that, and if the reason for the shoots is they have 10x the number of elephants they had 20 years ago and thats the issue they want to address (conservation) then thats also fine with me, no complaints here.
