8thGenFarmer
Well-Known Member
You mention great points. I feel the same. One of those situations where I would prefer if we could just set aside aside tons of wilds and say,"no people allowed to save the animals." Unfortunately,experience has showed me unless one man protects a group of animals, another man will destroy them. That's some hard wisdom to accept when being too idealistic.I can agree with that.
I'm a big hunter. I hate seeing animals on the verge of extinction.
Most people don't realize hunters have done more than animal rights groups ever thought about doing.
People bash trophy hunters. I'm a management hunter. They both are about the same.
A trophy would be the biggest animal at the end of his prime. The most meat. He's bred plenty.
In Africa the places that don't allow hunting have lower numbers of animals.
The countries that allow hunting, take that .money and hire conservation officers to stop poaching. They have more animals.
Also most your state parks are because a hunter. Roosevelt.
Anyways, I don't know why I went off on a tangent.
I think we see eye to eye mostly.
I'm pro rhino hunt for that reason, give them a cash value, get the locals to protect it like a resource. This isn't an easy thing to sell to the public though, can be hard to convince people hunting rhinos can save rhinos. Good people on both side of that debate I just happen to think you and I are on the right one for that.
Zoos are unpopular too, but are play a big part in saving endangered animals.
Glad we end on a good note, cheers bro!