On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote:

Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you
would just print it or borrow it.
Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend
to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach
them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families
starve.
Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the
majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and
provides some incentive for the people there not to poach.

BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers
who were not taking selected animals.



Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA
who paid for the privilege, right?

I already said I think trophy hunting is silly and they would be
better off doing their hunting with a tranquilize dart gun, helping
the vets take care of the animals but the fact remains, the only way
these countries can get the money to run these conservation programs
is to allow some limited hunting. (generally targeting old animals
that will be dying soon anyway)

If you people bitching about this would get off your wallets and send
them $50,000- $60,000 each like the dentist, you could save some
animals but it is easier to just bitch about it.

The same is true here. If PETA put as much money into habitat
restoration as Ducks Unlimited, they would have standing when they
bitch about duck hunting.