Trophy hunting: A cruel hobby or species conservation? | DW Documentary 

The 1930's...before we had modern hunting laws...it's 100% different now

@@powerhouseexotics sure but little too late. I come from the Savannahs so believe me when I say the lions were larger back in the days.

Thank you brother for being understanding and being ethical about hunting

They never said anything about not eating the meat.

@@effscottfitz-gee2024 He knows his talking about himself specifically

@@ultroytheroy34 Ethical? Are you crazy? Tell me what is ethical about murdering animals for selfish taste pleasure. Just another excuse for eating dead animal flesh.

You don't have to kill for survival. Not unless you're an indigenous man living in a place with zero edible crops. This circumtance doesn't apply to the majority of people.

Because the idea of "carbon neutrality" or "conservation neutrality" is a lie. You can't emit 10,000 tons of carbon and then buy "offsets" to be "neutral" Those 10,000 tons. The goal shouldn't be carbon neutrality but carbon negative or carbon zero. I emit 10,000 tons of carbon, then I buy offsets that state that 10,000 tons worth of carbon absorption of trees will be planted. Do they get planted right away? No. Do they absorb 10,000 tons worth of carbon right away? No. Is there a strong possibility that those trees being planted are actually for a forestry company to cut down when mature? Yes. I emitted 10,000 tons of carbon in 1 year with my business, but it's totally cool because the trees I paid to have planted will absorb that over 100 years. So every year I emit 10,000 tons and then in that 1 year (possible but unlikely) the trees planted absorb 100 tons of carbon. 1 year : +10,000 tons / -100 tons 2 years +20,000 tons / - 300 tons 3 years +30,000 tons / - 600 tons 4 years +40,000 tons / - 1000 tons. So now I'm carbon neutral but in 4 years I have emitted 40,000 tons of carbon into the atmosphere but my offsets have only absorbed 1000 tons. Not very neutral. The same thing would happen with "conservancy credits" You would pay someone to "conserve" the wildlife and that might include culling the wildlife. But it would probably get called "herd health management" or "active population management" so that everyone feels good and no one asks what exactly that means.

What would that entail? Western companies donating/investing in conservation projects so they gain carbon credits with which they are allowed to contaminate more? I would be surprised if that wasn't already happening, although not quite in the scale you're thinking of. Many multinational companies will boast about planting trees just to greenwash their massive exploitative profits. But the reality is that most of these projects are insignificant because the follow-up is shorter than two years and trees reaching adulthood is not guaranteed. But hey, it looks good on the audit and on the website! Nobody is going to go deep into the Amazon or Canada to check whether those trees are still alive.

I have never seen any anti hunter donate as much money as hunters to communities dying of hunger...

@@bekkerbosbeer3453 Well that makes me think that you just haven't seen much in your life...

⁠@@Fledermausmann I’m positive it’s you who hasn’t seen enough. Hunters know more about the animals they hunt than people like you and me. They have strict rules to minimize the suffering when they take the shot. A lot of the animals meats are donated to the communities they’re around as well. Besides, regardless of how much the hunters actually care about conservation, it’s just a fact that it helps to conserve the wildlife. They keep the value of these animals high enough for the countries to prevent poaching.

@@FledermausmannI bet you didn’t know that a lot of the money these hunters pay for the permits to hunt these animals goes to anti poaching organisations? That stops illegal poaching and allows sustainable hunting, not to mention that the meat goes to surrounding villages, that also goes a long way to helping those villagers give up poaching to feed their families. It always amazes how people feel sorry for the poor people in Africa and want to donate all this money to help them yet actively support the stuff that goes against helping them.

Exactly

EXACTLY. It's ALL ego and nothing else

I see no one has replied to your comment, because it’s full of facts and truths most people can’t handle. I believe in Botswana they give out 5 permits a year for people to go elephant hunting. They have the best population of elephants in Africa (more than the ecosystem can actually handle now) all because these people who hunt help the country in all the ways you just explained. I wish more people could realise this and put their feelings behind logic for once.

​@@spencersanderson1894the country's in Africa do and can control who comes in it becusse of the money, even if there is an endangered species there guess what it's already paid for and taken care of by the hunter, poaching still happens for the trophy hunting,the medicinal practices in China and bush meat like with most of africas primates. People inside the country very do control it. It happens all the time down in the lower regions like South Africa,samolia, Madagascar and more. Especially when the government funds reserves for the hunters to purchase an animal and buy said animal or sign forms for hunters to take care of pesky ones like a male giraffe killing small baby giraffes for females to go into heat faster or a lion just killing females or a female lion killing males. It's not people from other countries at the end of the day it's all the 30 + countries that have a say in it. Ignorants.

@@pedronycum6765 sorry are you for or against trophy hunting? I’m all for it if it’s sustainable and helps local communities because of the benefits it can provide. Although it can do very good things I believe there are people out there who exploit it for their own greed and profit but, on the whole trophy hunting (if done right) has far more benefits than negatives. Sorry if I wasn’t clear in the first comment.

@@spencersanderson1894 I am for trophy hunting when it benefits the ecosystem and me. Otherwise it's a one sided relationship, I love animals, grew up on wild Kratts and that one girls show where she had a whole house of animals and dr do little, but animals don't comprehend when they negatively affect an ecosystem just look at brazills hippos. Absolute menaces to a world that can't defend itself from them.

@@pedronycum6765 Fair play, then we are on the same side! I agree with you, there are people that don’t do it fairly or sustainably and that’s wrong. and yes there are also animals that are too much for an ecosystem, as well as the point you just made about the hippos, I made a point about the Elephants in Botswana, they have got to a population size that is too much for the ecosystem in Botswana to handle, so they need to be controlled before they cause too much damage to the environment and to humans.

Your absolutely right, people seem to temporarily forget money makes the world go around when it comes to hunting.im not a hunter but I have always been a fisherman and have killed and eaten lots of fish. I've always said hunters should have to use a spear or bow and arrow for trophies.ive eaten plenty of deer meat that someone else shot without a problem.no matter what people say or do hunting will continue,I believe trophie hunting should be outlawed,ive seen rooms full of a hundred animal mounts alll shot by one super rich old man,ann just think how many thousands of animals he killed to get the best one for the walls.taxidermy is a legitimate proffession that employs people worldwide.theres no solution to hunting because it will continue as long as people have money to waste.

Most logical comment

You seem to forget about the millions of people visiting African countries for the other kind of wildlife tourism, where you ¨shoot¨ an animal with your camera or phone. They might not pay as high a price per individual guest as hunters pay per dead animal, but the infrastructure required to maintain it is larger and more intricate, because they are more people: that sounds like a better way to sustain job availability in the region for locals.

@@NewAge374 true but why cant you have both? Aren’t two avenues of revenue towards conservation better than just one? And like you said a hunter is bringing way more $.

@@NewAge374 As mentioned most of the wildlife roam on private land. Tourists wants to get wined and dined and therefore they only go to bigger established reserves. They don't go to the random guy's place and sleep in a tent. I'm from South Africa and I can assure you that what you are suggesting isn't feasible across the board. It's easy to talk if you're not the one who has to implement it

Lies

​@@intelysisconsultants8253are you sure, show your sources? Go on the cites website for data, 50 years plus of Kenya hunting ban has not yielded its promise. Grevy's zebra is the sad illustration of it. No wildlife in mangetout and rose plantations...

I am a Kenyan and I can tell you that you are either misinformed or ignorant. The Kenya Wildlife Service is a good example of the government developing a task force to protect animals that actually works. Sure animal numbers are declining throughout Africa including Kenya, but I can tell you that we are doing better at conservation than most other African countries. Hunting is just a profitable business venture for greedy men and they will fight to keep it alive. This is a question of morality...not conservation as there are other ways that work other than hunting.

Do your facts have a source? If so, please include a link to the research paper to support your claims.

Not in any way trying to cause a row, but as a fellow activist you might relate to the experience of how hard it is for the two sides of an argument to come together. How would you do it if you stood in their shoes? Can you look someone in the eye who hunts animals for sport and gives you shit arguments about how it helps conservation, the local economy, and how they reduce the suffering by trying not to miss the first shot? Is it possible to have a discussion when you're starting from different philosophies? You might believe that nature is not there for humans to exploit or use at all, while they are scrambling to put some neo-colonial logic to their fancies. Are we allowed to show our emotions to be able to reach consensus, should we try to convince each other with pure ratio? I honestly don't know how to do it, but I'm willing to learn and take every piece of advice

I don’t even understand why is conversation of species so important? Isn’t it better if a species goes extinct naturally or survives without human intervention?

@@Barry-p8u most species going extinct in this Anthropocene age are doing so due to human pressures on environment etc.Not naturally!

@@eno.5796 what are u trying to say exactly. Coz I am saying the same thing- if they become extinct naturally like dinosaurs did- let it be. But humans shouldn’t try to play God- they shouldn’t take away lives of animals

@Barry-p8u dinosaurs weren't hunted by man to extinction, but I was saying most creatures not just animals but insects fish even forna are being pushed to extinction by mankind.competition for resources and land and sea etc everywhere and not to forget polution and pesticides etc.very few species being kept viable that wouldn't be otherwise by man

I can understand hunting the animals for food or overpopulation but not this kind of stuff.

If it’s local hunting, such as local whaling in Indonesia, that I understand because it’s part of the people’s livelihood, but this is nothing short of human greed and pride

You dont have to understand

Because after eating it I had a bear rug made! 😊

You don't understand Africa and the African attitude towards flora and fauna.. I guess chicken, cows, sheep, and pigs, will never go extinct because we eat them or find a used for them.. hmmmm.. Trophy Hunting is wrong.. but if a business model are made to preserve flora and fauna as that of Hunting ranges..( so be it )..hmmmm.. Maybe one day we could protect animals without the reason of exploiting it as wealth motivation.

Kenya is home to the Grevy's zebra. It is the largest zebra in Africa and the only zebra on CITES appendix 1, endangered. Strange result for the super "conservationist" country... a sad running joke...

...and it is white men and western lobbies who pushed and control Kenya's anti hunting stance...

You dont see how the value of the animal will incentivize your country to preserve the wildlife? It’s not like it’s some made up theory.

I hate to say it, but by making farming of such animals for hunting illegal, your government is giving poachers more reasons to want to poach these animals, for them the more likely the species is to go extinct, the more valuable to the poachers they become, with trophy hunting farming, along with farming rhinks for horns that can be cut and regrown over and over again, the animals are protected from poachers, money is made that can be used by the community for improvement, and for proper land management.

Bahaha

Not overpopulated but there can be too many bulls in a region which isn't good for a population

It's called farming

@@bekkerbosbeer3453 Sick!

Thank you for supporting the industry, Americans.

This is horrible

Schau einfach mal in deinen Kühlschrank.

Yup!

Soo how much money time and effort have you put into big game conservation then???

You were generous, I barely consider them as human. They have no feelings, they have no empathy, they have no compassion, they only appear human but they are not.

You were generous, I barely consider them as human. They have no feelings, they have no empathy, they have no compassion, they only appear human but they are not. They are abject, cowardly and demonic beings.

So is people that believe in abortion

@rolf Totally agree, those are usually the folks - in some cases sadistic - who can't get it up.

Cry more

Interesting point! Why take the trip at all, and not just donate 75,000 dollars directly into each conservancy? They might send you a nice souvenir in return, in the form of a fridge magnet, a woven basket or something else that also foments the local arts and crafts

Life need the dead to thrive and this hunters help in this when a great elefhant is hunting the other young and strong elefhant Will replace his position and the circle of life keep going

@@antoniobarbierineto9999 touche. But I still stand by my statement

@@antoniobarbierineto9999 And why has this ¨circle of life¨ worked for millions of years before human intervention then? Where is your justification that suddenly human hunters need to step in?

@@leonardowynnwidodo9704 trophy hunting brings in a lot of money economically, this I then spent on better infrastructure, business development and anti poaching organisations, this is a massive benefit for African countries. Botswana gives out 5 permits a year to trophy hunt their elephants. Botswana now has more elephants than its ecosystem can handle, because trophy hunting has helped get rid of poachers to the point elephant numbers have increased. Sustainable hunting is a thing and can be very beneficial for the surrounding communities. My last point is that the meat gets distributed between the local communities, that helps to lift the burden of poaching on local wildlife, as well as giving the locals a decent meal. You may not agree with hunting and that’s fair enough, but please learn the facts before trying to stop something that benefits others, just because it doesn’t benefit you.

So stop them. Why let others do this to your land for 400 years?

Fun fact a huge chunk of conservation budget comes from trophy hunting.

Thank you for your comment!

Bot account

@@effscottfitz-gee2024 I guess you are so unused to people commenting positively and appreciating other's work, that you think anyone being appreciative on social media is a bot

They are both deplorable when you could just eat something else... Since when you could just do something else they are both just done for pleasure and not need... ;-)

@@gangasinghrathore4709 look at Kenya doing it without trophy hunting...if you are so concerned about animals why not donate without the hunting part

Interesting didn’t know this

Hunting is cowardly... You are the one crying and who is so broken that you get sad if you don't bully and harm innocent sentient beings who are likely only about as intelligent as children... Pathetic of you... Fix yourself... ;-)

Thanks for watching and for the feedback!

Under an international convention, Namibia may allow five male rhinos to be killed per year. The meat is distributed to the local people and the payment helps fund conservation programs. The black rhino hunted was twenty-nine years old and was interfering with breeding by younger males. - So a male that was no longer breeding was stopping males who could be increasing population from doing that. Hunt in south africa for any 6 - all of which are not endangered. So managed hunting. Cool. You do realize that you're paying for the opportunity to hunt not a guaranteed kill right?

Your point? As this video indicated as part of a critique to the argument that the money the ¨client¨ pays does not end up benefitting the people in those areas that need it the most. If only a handful of dollars end up with the locals, I don't call that a success story of sustainability

My point is, this is the dollar amount for exterminating endangered sentient beings.

@@susllim Okay, got it. Just wanted to make sure. I think another point that could be taken from these numbers is how a pastime like this is not accessible to the larger masses of tourists who want to experience African wildlife. It's a hobby for rich people and that by definition should raise questions about its ethics. Not to mention that many practices created for the rich are not exactly sustainable financially nor ecologically.

​@@susllim Alaska and Canada are off my travel list now Im gonna defame Tf Outta them

HI so hunting boars in Texas is harder then you think because people actually charge you for your help lots of people do they take advantage of people who try to help clear out invasive species on their land so that's why they don't do it alot

Because so many people (in and out South Africa) can afford to spend thousands of dollars on shooting an animal? Is the only way to get close to another animal, which lives in your backyard, to shoot it with a gun? If the South African government cared about their people seeing wild elephants that much, they would organise school trips from the Cape to Kwazulu-Natal to bring people to Kruger NP. They would respect the animals as part of their heritage to protect and they would think of a myriad of other ways to live alongside them in harmony.

No it should not do you know what happens when you ban most conservation efforts rely on troohy hunting for their more like a chuge chunk of their budget if you ban it this could happen please stop following your heart it is deceitful follow you brain for a moment. 1. Funding Loss: Many conservation programs rely on revenue from trophy hunting. A ban could lead to significant funding shortfalls for anti-poaching efforts and habitat preservation. 2. Wildlife Management: In some areas, trophy hunting can help manage animal populations. A sudden ban might lead to overpopulation of certain species, resulting in habitat degradation and increased human-wildlife conflict. 3. Economic Impact: Communities that benefit economically from trophy hunting (through jobs, tourism, and infrastructure) might suffer financially, leading to increased poaching as local livelihoods are threatened. 4. Conservation Incentives: Trophy hunting can provide incentives for landowners to maintain wildlife habitats. A ban could reduce these incentives, potentially leading to habitat loss. 5. Ecological Imbalance: Removing a regulated hunting practice may disrupt carefully managed ecosystems, possibly leading to unforeseen ecological consequences. 6. Shift to Illegal Hunting: If trophy hunting is banned without viable alternatives, it might lead to an increase in illegal poaching as people seek income from wildlife. While a ban on trophy hunting could have negative impacts, the extent of damage would depend on how conservation strategies are adapted in response to the change. 1. Funding Loss: Many conservation programs rely on revenue from trophy hunting. A ban could lead to significant funding shortfalls for anti-poaching efforts and habitat preservation. 2. Wildlife Management: In some areas, trophy hunting can help manage animal populations. A sudden ban might lead to overpopulation of certain species, resulting in habitat degradation and increased human-wildlife conflict. 3. Economic Impact: Communities that benefit economically from trophy hunting (through jobs, tourism, and infrastructure) might suffer financially, leading to increased poaching as local livelihoods are threatened. 4. Conservation Incentives: Trophy hunting can provide incentives for landowners to maintain wildlife habitats. A ban could reduce these incentives, potentially leading to habitat loss. 5. Ecological Imbalance: Removing a regulated hunting practice may disrupt carefully managed ecosystems, possibly leading to unforeseen ecological consequences. 6. Shift to Illegal Hunting: If trophy hunting is banned without viable alternatives, it might lead to an increase in illegal poaching as people seek income from wildlife.

Well too much munching on that specific tree and it will go extinct.

@@pabloandre8571 the Baobab tree is close to extinction. So yeah it's concerning

Indeed, if they were so concerned about the baobabs they wouldn't have any elephants on that area. They just need excuses like these to shoot another animal

@@NewAge374 okay please provide the area for these animals since it's so easy

@@JP-rs1md Yeah because of anthropogenic causes... Idk I don't think humans should be punishing elephants for trying to survive in conditions we've caused ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think it's a really weak excuse lol

If you ban trophy hunting how will you pay for the people who works at wildlife conservation believe or not trophy hunting provides a large revenue for wildlife conservation because why would the locals care about wildlife animals who may ruin their livelihood yo have in someway give incentives.

The loss of trophy hunting thos our the impacts 1. Funding Loss: Many conservation programs rely on revenue from trophy hunting. A ban could lead to significant funding shortfalls for anti-poaching efforts and habitat preservation. 2. Wildlife Management: In some areas, trophy hunting can help manage animal populations. A sudden ban might lead to overpopulation of certain species, resulting in habitat degradation and increased human-wildlife conflict. 3. Economic Impact: Communities that benefit economically from trophy hunting (through jobs, tourism, and infrastructure) might suffer financially, leading to increased poaching as local livelihoods are threatened. 4. Conservation Incentives: Trophy hunting can provide incentives for landowners to maintain wildlife habitats. A ban could reduce these incentives, potentially leading to habitat loss. 5. Ecological Imbalance: Removing a regulated hunting practice may disrupt carefully managed ecosystems, possibly leading to unforeseen ecological consequences. 6. Shift to Illegal Hunting: If trophy hunting is banned without viable alternatives, it might lead to an increase in illegal poaching as people seek income from wildlife.

Thanks for watching and for sharing your thoughts on the topic

The guy payed a note to Make this,let him keep the trophy,don’t make diference to the nature.

@felipequadros6473 as the black rhinoceros or barbari lion if it doesn't make a difference 🤡

@@Quanic2000 It’s other context,here we’re talking about controlated hunt,I don’t like this too,but we can’t ignore the facts.I said that after the animal’s death,don’t make diference to the nature what they do with the “trophy”.It’s a number’s question,not emotion.

@@felipequadros6473 then "control hunt" wild hogs in Texas who aren't endangered animals. "Numbers over emotion" 🤡

Check Grevy's zebra for quality of conservation in Kenya...As a zebra species you are better off hunted in Namibia than protected in Kenya...

As a baby taken away from your mother and the pride to be used as a pet, used as breeding machine, sold on the internet for getting shot, bones sold to the asian market. Is that what you call a nice life, you hypocrite.

They are also putting this issues into the formula, considering our growing population. More people means more space and more mouths to feed, and also more tensions between us and the natural environment. Which is why we need to handle this ethically if no one wants another casualty on their side

Did you eat the crocodile on your video?

Animals aren’t humans

​@@lollol2172... He never said they were and they wouldn't need to be in order for his comment to hold true... Also some animals are humans since humans are an animal species... ;-)

For food.

​@@effscottfitz-gee2024wrong

@@User_sanrio-v9t no cap