Only one I've seen.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/wo...mbabwe-guide-n402926

This is my view - its all about land usage - not dollars to locals, etc. Kenya wild game dropping 65% since 1972 is a proof point. Locals want cows, not game.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As friends have asked about hunting in Africa, this is what I lay out - whether you find hunting horrible or not, if you want the wild game to exist, hunting protects habitat for them.

another:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/...-the-lion/index.html

I read two more yesterday, I think the WSJ and NYT. NYT in particular had an excellent op ed.

It's good to see some reporting that makes sense.

Most people had never heard of Zimbabwe or Robert Mugabe and now they are making a scene over a lion when Mugabe has killed and impoverished so many?

Libtards......go figger.....



.

"The act of hunting of animals themselves is not beneficial to conservation, the money that is accrued from hunting is what is beneficial to conservation,"

Really?

quote:

Originally posted by 1/2 slam:
"The act of hunting of animals themselves is not beneficial to conservation, the money that is accrued from hunting is what is beneficial to conservation,"

Really?

I'll grant them that bit - a bullet through the brainbox seldom improves the lifestyle of THAT animal, but the money dropped on the table for taking out an old man beyond breeding age and used to ensure that his sons and grandsons retain their habitat is what ensures the continuation of the whole lot ...

Granted, they did leave off the corollary.

Of course, a bullet through the brainbox of a really useless animal that somehow breeds inferior cubs / kittens / lambs etc to allow better genes a chance, may well improve the breed. if that's what they mean by "conservation".