Seems western hunters flying to Africa to shoot rare species is again in the headlines, this time in Sweden. I understand why this makes people upset, however, the situation is more complex than evil wannabe-colonialists wanting zebra heads above their fireplace.
Some of the serious threats to African wildlife (to the extent such generalisations can be done to such a vast continent holding any number of different habitats) include poaching (due to either value of animal products or to protect crops and livestock) and habitat loss.
Obviously, these are driven by local developments, and biodiversity simply isn't as interesting to most people if it means your living wage is directly negatively affected by it (I will argue this is true for most westerners as well).
Trophy hunting give a real monetary value to animals. Yes, it's far from perfect, and there's certainly shady things found in the field. But it is also an effective way that rural communities might be given the option to choose biodiversity without their livelihood suffering.
There's a reason why fly-fishers are among the key stream conservationist groups, why duckhunters are among those most active in keeping small invasive predator species at bay.
Most people agree on the importance of biodiversity and conservationism in principle, but to get people to actually do something about it a little selfish interest is often a good thing.
Sustainable fishing and hunting isn't at odds with conservationism, but on the contrary can be a key tool, both at home and abroad. Obviously, an informed debate about what constitutes "sustainable" is needed and the answer will change over time and depend on location.
...but the idea that "dead giraffe, bad" is a crude oversimplification. End of rant
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
