Are all animals created equal? I personally would like mosquitoes to be driven extinct, (the damned bl**dsuckers!) and if the rare multi-warted toad (probably made up, but who knows?) also goes extinct as a consequence ... who cares?
Also another thing, trophy hunters collect one of each animal, so they'll only hunt one or 2, while poachers hunt as many as they can, ultimately hurting more animals
@@joepat1279 Yes I did. I also looked at other sources which show "let the community decide" is sometimes not the best option (US civil war??). For instance, will you allow a child to be raped by a millionaire if he donates fixed sum to govt for helping victims of child trafficking?
ThirdFront that’s completely different, how could you compare raping a child for funding to trophy hunting for funding. Both are completely horrible but they also involve completely different situations. Both trophy hunting and poaching are wrong, and I wouldn’t want either. But if I had to choose, I would want the one that helps funding to protect more animals. Again, both are wrong and you shouldn’t do either but also it’s not equal to raping a child for funding. The lasting effects for a child who is raped is indescribable. And yes you could argue the lasting effects of killing species of animals, but again you shouldn’t compare them. They aren’t the same. You asked if you would allow a child to be raped by a millionaire if he gave money to help prevent sex-trafficking. The answer is obviously, no. No amount of money is worth raping a child, even if it saves more. But killing one animal to save more isn’t as horrible. Wrong, yes. But not worse then raping a child to save more. If more animals are saved because one died, then the ones saved could populate more. It’s not the best solution but it’s working. It’s not justified in any way, but I rather see more alive then more dead. I am not saying that trophy hunting is right, it’s a very wrong thing to do. But I just hate the fact that you brought up raping a child for funding to be compared to killing an animal for funding. It isn’t and never will be the same.
@@thurdays_angel6442 Unless you see animals as one of "us", recognize their equal right to live on earth like us, and realize their survival is essential for our future, no conservation is possible. It would only be a farm, animal farm.
I’m not crazy about the way they fund this, but when I was in Namibia last, I visited Etosha National Park which is basically a giant safe zone for animals, and it’s literally guarded by a sizable portion of Namibia’s military. The border patrol of the national park is more impressive than the border patrol of some entire nations. As much as I dislike the funding, there’s not a lot of arguing that there’s a pretty serious net gain
I hunt and I am not crazy about the way this is funded either but there isn't a better way currently. Many celebrities have sufficient funds to purchase and operate game reserves but they seem to find it more convenient to virtue signal and stockpile their cash.
I'm from Namibia and I can tell you we protect those parks like America protects it's southern border and we protect our actual borders like America protects it's northern border.
Plus the animals that are trophy hunted are generally bad for the species to be kept alive. Generally, aggressive males who can no longer breed and just kill younger males who can. No new babies if that aggressive male is left alive.
"But still", my ass. It might work, but it does not solve the problem. "But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad. ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter?? What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters? -That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
@@slevinchannel7589 Cat Person has a point. It's one thing to point out the flaws of a solution, but it accomplishes nothing if you can't give a better one.
Lets say i empathize with Garrus Vakarian most of the time. "Now i understand why the world needs cold hearted dictators every now and again... they don't give a damn about the consequences."
@@silverstar7843 yeah, but with trophy hunting they (the reservations not the people doing it) care very much about the consequences. That's what this whole video is about.
"But still", my ass. It might work, but it does not solve the problem. "But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad. ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter?? What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters? -That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
Man this really hurts. I've always been against trophy hunting but I hate that this is such a presentable argument. I never thought I'd see myself thinking controlled trophy hunting would be beneficial.
Caitlin The Insomniac Be proud. The first step to being a better human being is being open minded enough to know you only know as much as you know. Sometimes, you learn new facts and that challenges how you used to think. You can either think, A. Screw this bullhonkey, I know the truth, or B. Oh, this means I’ve seen a different side of the argument. You should never EVER feel bad about picking B. because EVERYONE is wrong about something and people picking B. are just humble enough to admit that ;)
Honestly, as a member of the FWC, the NRA, and as a strong advocate for sustainable hunting, I’ve never truly considered how much controlled trophy hunting could help out conservation efforts overseas (which is strange, especially since I advocate the benefits to general hunting here in the States). I just saw hunting these types of protected species as the equivalent to poaching. But after looking more into this argument, it’s easy to see the benefits of such a practice.
To add, this is true. I have a a dear friend that is from South Africa. I asked her about this, and she confirms this. It does help the communities and does help with the preservation of the animals! Be comforted in knowing this. It is controlled and the money IS given to land owners!
When i was a kid, i never understood it either. Until i realized that the old, grumpy animals that can no longer breed were killing the younger ones that can breed. That and when the population is to much in one area and they eat up all the food, they'll starve. That's when i realized they need to go.
That makes so much more sense. Killing off the very old ones that can't breed and the ones that are killing the younger ones that can is a very great idea. However, I'm not enthusiastic about the 'if-there's-too-many-in-one-spot-thin-the-herd' method. Can't just move more of the breeding animals to other locations?
Except trophy hunters don't kill old or sick animals. They go after animals in their prime. The whole POINT of trophy hunting is to kill animals in their prime, to have a good-looking trophy to gloat over.
You’re still wrong. As someone else said, trophy hunters don’t hunt old animals. They hunt the younger ones that look healthier and would look better on their wall.
Cool. Completely logical and factual argument that brings up some excellent points. You can also go into how properly managed hunting DOES help keep in check more wild and out of control populations. Trophy hunters still don't get to call themselves "conservationists" though. That's for people that donate money to conservation without expecting to get to shoot something in exchange. Gamblers aren't "Supporting the Development and Local Economy of Las Vegas".
Gamblers can't support the development and local economy of Las Vegas because the majority of the stuff that's in "Las Vegas" is actually an unincorporated town called Paradise, and the stuff was created there to avoid paying taxes to the real Las Vegas (they only pay taxes to the county, state, and federal govt.). The Mayor of Las Vegas tried to annex Paradise but was rejected by the county because the county would get more revenue out of Paradise being an unincorporated town rather than it being an actual part of Las Vegas. So in theory, the gamblers are "Supporting the Development and Economy of Clark County, Nevada" or it's just going to the two corporations (and possibly the mafia) that run the place.
Bob Bob I mean... My point was that accidentally doing something contrary to your intentions that's good by doing a thing (saving animals by killing them or increasing money flow by trying to win a sizeable amount from a place) doesn't make you a hero. So, not like it actually ruins my point.
Ok but don't think all trophy hunters are like this "dweeb" in the video. In fact, I don't think it's crazy to say that most are like the trophy hunters I know: people who are aware that the money they spend on their hobby is going to good causes and more often hunt not for trophy but for food.
So you're telling me letting another country to decide how to handle its own conservation problems without interfering in it with the (holier then art thou) is a good method? Amazing.
In many ways world powers should let lesser countries try to govern themselves. While there should be some baseline for all countries like don't blow up the world, don't kill your own people and don't attack others, every other decision should be up to them. If we flipped the situation where a country like Uganda was running our national parks like Yellowstone, we'd probably be upset. And if we had severe poverty or job loss and the outside country was funding a save the wolves program, we'd probably be upset too. Conservation is a worldwide collaboration, but they do still have the right to do what they believe is necessary for their own wildlife and economy. We might disagree as westerners, but we're in far better positions. What we should be doing if we care this much is start relocating private nature reserves of African/Asian wildlife here in the United States. If US citizens are that concerned that African countries aren't going to protect Elephants/Rhinos well enough, then we should step in, offer money to buy private land in Africa or buy animals to be relocated to protected areas in the Americas.
In a parallel way, using paper can actually help save the trees. Most trees are clear cut not for wood, but to clear land for more profitable uses. The more demand we have for lumber and paper, the more we get "paper farms" and sustainable tree cutting, since companies that sell wood want to have trees in the future... to eventually cut down and sell once replacements have started growing.
In countries like Zimbabwe, all wild game meat goes back to the community. It is illegal for a visiting Hunter to bring meat back to the United States. Anyone who has traveled abroad should know this as you have to fill out a customs declaration upon returning to the US.
Very true, nobody is going to argue that. However, the problem is inherently obvious that even legalized hunting encourages illegal hunting. Just this past year America was pissed off that a hunter had Cecil the lion killed, and to this day, even though the dentist who did it hasn't claimed full responsibility for the "mistake", nobody has yet to find the head of this well known mascot. I'm fairly sure it's in the dentist's trunk, but conservationism has an incredible amount of flaws and loops: "You can hunt these lions...BUT, you have to pinky swear not to hunt THESE LIONS." Typical hunter: "Duuur...sure, whatever!"
shindean You do have a lot to learn about hunting. Look at Kenya when they had legal hunting and now. Poaching has almost wiped out the elephant. Legal hunting ensures game animals have a place. For the future, watch Botswana.
It is not the responsibility of the hunter to know what animal to kill if he is paying a guide to help him find an animal to kill. Any good guide has that as part of the contract. That dentist got screwed over and is the one taking the blame because no one wants to blame some random African dude who no one can harass online.
Martin Stiastny And as you type this, two more rhino species went extinct this year. Conservation isn't defined as restoration, it means TRYING to keep what's left. This may be the best of a bad situation, but it's still bad. Plus, lions are the keystone species of an ecosystem. So if you ever get annoyed with those commercials that feature a starving indigenous village that depended on the natural earth for nutrition in Africa, and it's asking for donations, then stop supporting the hunting of lions, or STFU.
shindean You sir, are a fucking idiot. You know nothing of the benefits of hunting. The economies of countries or the attitude of the people in these countries. The value of these wild animals is on the ground, meaning, what is it worth to the people. They see lions and rhino and elephants as threats and dangers. They would rather kill them off and raise cattle. Hunters paying trophy fees and the industry generating jobs for the local communities proves a benefit to the people to not kill off these animals. Lose the emotions and use your brain.
I think it's more about the endangered species that pains me, chickens and other livestock are massively overpopulated by us. If we manage to get white rhinos overpopulated somehow then I will be impressed.
I’m from Zimbabwe and this is so true!!!! People neeed to spread this cause the decrease of trophy hunting and people pushing to ban it is going to cause problems
No. I’m not African. I’ve never been to Zimbabwe or anywhere like that. However, I still feel I can place moral judgement on immoral practices that happen over there. Similarly, I have never been to China, yet I can still judge the Yulin Dog Meat Festival and the abuse of the Uyghur Muslims as wrong. Anyhow, killing individual animals to save species is still wrong. As important as saving species is, a species is not a sentient being, but an individual animal is. If a man were to shoot a hundred children and then donate thousands of pounds to a children’s charity and save thousands of children’s lives, while the outcome of the good he did would still be amazing, it wouldn’t make what he did to start with morally right. It’s still mass murder. Imagine someone were to do this with a particular race or nationality of people and offer rich psychopathic and sadistic outsiders the chance to shoot a few of them for fun, but don’t worry, the money that came from them would be used to fund healthcare and education for the remaining people. If trophy hunters genuinely cared so much for conservation and wildlife, why are not just donating the money directly to wildlife conservation and rescue and education? Why are they spending time murdering innocent animals and not actually volunteering to help them? At the end of the day, they are doing it because they enjoy it. They are psychopaths and sadists who get pleasure out of killing magnificent and beautiful animals, animals who may have been happy and have families, animals who have just as much right to live as they do, and taking their heads, horns, skins and tusks as trophies and posing, smiling, with the dead animals and having their photos taken like the sadists they are. I honestly don’t know what the solution is, but this is not the solution. More funding is definitely needed to save the animals, but we need to find alternative sources of the funding and support that don’t involve murdering the animals needlessly. If we were to solve/reduce Africa’s poverty issues, that would go a long way here. Btw, I am well aware that not all Africans are poor.
I am well aware that not all Africans are bad to the animals. There are conservationists and rangers who put their life on the line to protect the animals and I greatly respect and honour them for this.
"But still", my ass. It might work, but it does not solve the problem. "But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad. ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter?? What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters? -That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
They have tried other methods of fundraising for these reserves. They didn't just jump to hunting straight away, they tried tourism etc. But it didn't generate enough money especially for the landmasses/environments was talking about. I,.e. jungles and hot open plains in countries with growing populations with a need for increased farmland or at least increased farming yields. Unfortunately, this solution works best in these areas. There are other places (usually near coasts that deal with endangered sea life and over fishing etc.) where farming fish, wildlife conservation and tourism brings in enough money to support conservation. Although these places have completely different geography, population density and ability to grow food, access to water (mainly thanks to their geography) etc. sorry just had this debate with my colleagues who say it's immoral but forgetting about nay practicality in the matter.
I totally support responsible hunting, especially deer hunting! A couple good bucks can feed a family for a year and it helps keep the population in check, there fore fewer deer on the roads to get hit by cars!
In the area where I live, there's a species that needs to be hunted seasonally in order to prevent them from overpopulating and damaging their ecosystem, and the revenue from hunters does very much benefit the community as well as the ecosystem in some cases
This happens in the US. In Valley Forge, PA, the deer population can spike to where the deer starve, get forced onto roads and hit by cars etc. So every 10 years or so, a handful of marksmen (not every Tom, Dick and Harry with a hunting license) come in and thin the herd. The reason? All the natural predators have been gone. And with humans no longer hunting for food reliably, the numbers shoot up. The only other solution is to bring back the predators, but they also prey on people, their pets, and their children.
Chuck Hunts oh but I am making a change to it by advancing the research of fusion power which shall replace any coal or oil burning function nuclear will stay though
"But still", my ass. It might work, but it does not solve the problem. "But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad. ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter?? What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters? -That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
Andrew Oxford I’m sure most of the members of PETA do care about facts. Unfortunately, it’s the crazies we usually hear about because they are usually the loudest and most entertaining. The media (news included) want people to watch, listen, and/or read their stories, so the crazy PETA member are what people see. So this makes people view organizations like PETA negatively and as a big joke. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They just want animals to be treated better, and that is an awesome cause. But the crazies give them a bad name. I’ll bet most PETA member are normal people that just want to help animals. Unfortunately, people only hear about the crazy members, who are most likely a very small fraction of the total number of members. Most, if not all organizations have crazy people as members. So because the media wants people to watch, read, or listen to them, they are gonna report on and write about the entertaining crazy PETA people instead of normal, boring PETA people.
@@PaintedDog That goes with most organizations. I will look it up later, but I am sure there are smaller grassroots organizations that do a better job.
@@iamacatperson7226 yeah i wasn't clear. What i mean is, if the bad guys aren't going to be killed, someone must be trying to save them, or bend laws so they can get away somehow. If a terrorist isn't given a death penalty, it means that country is overpowered by the ones who support the terrorist, which is not a good sign, the country might be corrupted to the point of no return.
I feel like Adam should have elaborated more on which animals are allowed to be tagged for hunting. Barring rare occasions, only older males of the species who are no longer virile are to be hunted. Protecting mating pairs and animals in their prime is how you get the population to recover. On top of that, sometimes the older, non-virile males will still maintain a harem, thus hogging potential mates for males in their prime. Even worse, in the case of black rhinos, the older males will attack and kill the younger ones out of aggression and possessiveness. It might not be right for governments to set out warrants for endangered animals lives, but the individual animals which are chosen as targets are carefully vetted. Make your own decisions based off of this info
Also, when a man pays for the trophy hunt, he will end up supporting the host country in more ways than the initial fee. He will have to stay in local hotels, pay for tour and hunting guides to join his party, and rent vehicles and equipment. Since almost all hunters are supervised, the animals are hunted humanely, and without waste.
I'm okay with these African nations strategy on Trophy Hunting. But I really hate this ignorant Western animal rights groups who tell people what or what not to do even though the issues don't affect them directly. PETA, for example, has a pile of histories about their animal rights advocacies that had done harms more than good.
Same here. And it’s not the fact that people like PETA are wrong. With me, it’s the fact that they basically put themselves into echo chambers, completely refusing to rationally discuss topics like this like reasonable adults. THAT’S what ticks me off with groups like that.
fajar ahmad setiawan PETA are also hypocrites because they kill hundreds of thousands or even millions or more pets like cats and dogs even tho they are perfectly healthy or at least healthy for no reason including puppies and kittens.
@@k.4625 Are you saying the group that’s worse than hunters is good? Must mean hunters are good. Hunters actually use the bodies. They eat some of the meat, and donate the rest to local villages. They use the skin and bones as well. Nothing goes to waste.
@@InitialPC PETA makes more rules and laws under the guise “we’re just helping animals”. But the rules and laws they make are really just to get rid of hunters.
He forgot to mention that the hunters are assigned an animal and that animal is always older or negatively effecting the community or something. Typically it is older males who are not capable of reproducing but are still fighting for mates.
Remember that poachers also kill humans ! Not for the meat or ressources of course. Like any criminal, they cheerfully kill everyone that try to stop them, and the death toll is huge
People kill bugs because there are a fuckton of them and they can be pretty annoying for the most part. Also, it's pretty easy to step on a bug without even realising it. There's some cute bias, sure, but it's more about the quantity of the animal: no matter how many bugs you kill there's still gonna be billions, the same thing happens in places where rabbits are overpopulated, people just kill lots of them
My philosophy is that things in life are almost never what you see them as. That's why I don't judge people by what they do to me, maybe they were just feeling particularly irritable one day or depressed another.
His smugness on this subject that appears to have poorly researched is gross. I lost a lot of respect for him and the show. news.janegoodall.org/2016/06/16/new-report-strikes-blow-trophy-hunting/
Like it showed near the beginning of the video, they usually only allow ruthless, ill or both animals to gain money. Basically, animals that could potentially harm others. This saves other animals as well.
Well, it's the lesser evil or the "ends justifying the means" kind of thing. Too bad we can't apply it to our own species. Too many of us in one planet.
I have, a few actually, they also don't seem to know about land carrying capacities. Not understanding that permits in the developed countries like the USA and Australia, are to cull a specific number of animals that the local ecosystem can not support.
...and when those trophy hunters make their kill, other than some photos they don't do anything with the carcass (they often can't due to customs regulations) so the meat and hides get distributed to locals for food and use by the game wardens overseeing the hunt. So they paid big bucks to preserve an endangered animal, and fed some locals...a win/win.
Michael McLaughlin they forgot the fact that some of the animals that are hunted are older and more violent, often killing and raping the younger ones.
@@NafkeNo you won't make this into a loophole for your tax exemption scheme. You have already a lot of loopholes already to not pay your taxes. Why you always want to corrupt everything with selfishness and greed. But you don't care as long as your sins are making you money.
She snapped a little at the end... Also, hunting is better than poaching, and in some cases I think it´s even neccessary to control the populations of some species because humans wiped out most of the predators. So u can´t just prohibit hunting
hunting is way better than poaching people who are experienced in hunting or people who are getting into it are always told to hunt animals in certain seasons, usually after breeding this makes it so you don't kill off animals before they can repopulate poachers on the other hand don't give a shit about the animals, they kill them no matter if they are endangered or not, whatever the season just to make the big bucks also poaching is a illegal activity
As a hunter myself, yeah trophy hunting is looked down upon. Hunting for trophies is about the lowest it gets, now of course what you kill you take its trophies such as antlers or ivory’s, but that isn’t the reason to hunt them. It is for food and sport, which sport is also pretty low on the list for most people.
Trophy Hunter bit careless to animal meat they Will donate the to needy local but they also eat Hunted animal even if Hunter don't want eat animal they hunt then there is local that will eat the meat
The problem is that poachers are extremely well armed (sometimes better armed than the military of the country they live in) and many poachers have agents that would inform them of any attack...It's not fair but until a time when either the African nations are able to ask for help without fear or are able to handle themselves, poaching will be a problem
Deathdragon is exactly right. They dont get to just go out and shoot the first lion or whatever they see, they are guided to the specific lion thats been murdering its fellows and is sick or too old to breed and told to kill that one.
In addition, hunting and fishing licenses fund most states' conservation efforts. A lot of these efforts are facing budget crunches due to the falling popularity of those sports. I have zero interest in hunting and at best a tepid interest in fishing, but I've considered buying licenses just as a way of funding conservation.
They breed like rabbits because humans fucked the ecological balance by eradicating predators from areas or reducing thier numbers such as wolves and bears. Studies have shown that reintroduction of these species brings natural equilibrium. But then you get farmers complaining that they are vermin destroying thier livelihoods and scared local fearing for thier safety. We create wildlife issues with our selfish nature and total disregard for the wider environment then try and solve it by killing away the problem
@morton christie you have proved my point. Rewilding an area for game is not rewilding an area for conservation is it? The predator/prey dynamic works wonderfully when we humans leave well alone. Habitats flourish and animal populations self stabilise. As soon as we want to farm/build/live somewhere the predators are the first to go via safety concerns, then any other animal who causes any sort of inconvenience is declared vermin and culling takes place. Humans are the issue and always will be.
@morton christie how have I missed the point? We humans want our cake and to eat it too. We want a ridiculous amount of diversity when it comes to food that operates at a detriment to the environment and wild animals. Areas where predators exist will only exist for as long as humans dont want something from or to settle in thier area. Game reserves are artificial and many species have been introduced to areas for hunting, , then abandoned, then classified as a menace when people want to repurpose the land. My original post was about deer hunting and the original commentators insistence that deer were a pest and that hunting helped maintain thier numbers.l, when the fact was we created the issue by eradicating wolves, who themselves were seen as pests by farmers trying to protect their bottom line. We live out of sync to the rest of nature, changing our opinions and actions depending on the flavour of the day, this wont change until we factor in other animals needs aswell as our own. In reference to your last point, I find it a little arrogant and presumptuous to make statements about where I've travelled without knowing one iota about me. I've been to Africa a number of times, Botswana, kenya, the Congo.......and south Africa. I served in the army for 12 years and some were training, others, short UN mandated deployments and a few just personal travel. I've seen the corruption and disregard for land and life with my own eye, I've also seen compassion and those trying to help wildlife. I would also like to point out that I was referring to the worlds attitude as a whole and mainly western nations attitudes to thier own countries biodiversity and the mental gymnastics they use to justify thier total disregard whilst chasing a profit
Adam is usually good at issuing challenges to conventional wisdom, but often he fails to consider rebuttals or counterarguments. In this case, what he's arguing for isn't even "unconventional," as legal trophy hunting is a common strategy for conservation groups and was even foundational to many older organizations' original intent. He's actually siding with the status quo here, and fails to consider that: A.) Ethically speaking, the efficacy of hunting to generate revenue for conservation doesn't justify it in terms of individual animals' welfare. Conservation and animal rights are often conflated in the public eye, but there are major philosophical differences between the two movements, the former's focus on species and populations and the latter's emphasis on individual well-being being the most basic. If one believes individual animals' lives have value, then raising conservation revenue by selling hunting permits cannot be justified, any more than an orphanage would be justified in selling child slaves as a fundraiser. B.) Legal hunting can itself encourage poaching in a number of ways: * Encouraging perceptions of trophy hunting or wildlife products as luxuries in the public eye, thereby increasing demand for wild animals' products or the opportunity to hunt them beyond what the legal market can supply, * Providing cover for smugglers to traffic illegal products under the guise of legal ones, using fake documentation, * Exacerbating social inequities between wealthy foreigners and impoverished locals, leading to poaching out of economic desperation, * Sewing resentment over the double standard that allows rich foreigners to kill animals while locals are punished for doing the same, sometimes leading hired guards to secretly allow or even collaborate with poachers as an act of political resistance. Ofir Drori, the founder of the African conservation group EAGLE (Eco Activists for Governance and Legal Enforcement), addresses similar objections (both pragmatic and ethical) to the related issue of conservationists attempting to raise funds by selling ivory, in his article "Why We Should Not Sell Seized Ivory Stocks. Ever." He also offers a far superior approach to saving wildlife that doesn't require sacrificing them to trophy hunters, described in "Wildlife Protection - Fighting Back Harder."
+Animal People You have great points. Perhaps, though, if conservation groups' funding/focus was directed more towards legitimizing the "Legal Hunting" side of it, more effort could be spent to combat the poaching, which would happen with or without the legal hunting present. And as +The Flying Sphagetti Monster said, it's working. As in, the populations are stably increasing. For now. I disagree with your ethical part, though. One doesn't have to believe that an individual animal has such immense value in order to believe in conservation. In other words, conservation groups don't have to be animal welfare groups. This is where it gets important. Conservation groups are imperative to preserving the planet's resources, and they have to start now, not 10 years from now, because the animals they are talking about could all be dead by then. That's why their strategies have to take in mind the people involved in the area - they have to be plausible. Welfare groups, on the other hand, have a moral agenda. And while they believe that any animal suffering is wrong, they can feasibly take their time about it. After all, no dire consequence happens should they not achieve their goal in that 10 years. The movement can still go on. Because of that difference, the conservation group would, to use your analogy, decide to "sell the child slaves" to "save the orphanage," even if the animal welfare group would not.
ahh ethics, that most wonderful of words to throw around when you want to say 'this makes me feel bad' but realize on some level that that won't be accepted as an actual argument. Much similar to the appeal to nature as a fallacy.
Sooo how are you gonna fund conservation then? Cause i am pretty much not gonna donate since i literally gives not fucks. All ethics aside it works and it doesnt have any other solution.
Even though folks in this thread touched on this, its mainly about quality of life of the animals. Reserves are basically massive enclosures that ensure the animals can be monitored and properly cared for without necessarily intervening too much in their natural way of things. Search "Kevin Richardson Lion Whisperer." He is an example of a conservationist that is also petitioning for proper quality of life for the wild animals. He himself is a lot more hands on than most, but he also is someone with a VERY rare gift. The poachers illegally kill animals on these large reserves to then sell the spoils to later on. If they could "breed" them they probably would and it would be more controlled, but to do that would cost a lot of money, probably more than they are looking to spend on getting rich quick. Poachers are just vile.
It happens when there is not enough predators. Kangaroos are hunted and many more still die during droughts, they are reintroducing dingos in some areas in the same way Yellowstone reintroduced wolves
Thanks for the information, I wasn't quite aware and will have to dig deeper into this. However, I've never understood why people have so much trouble with this concept. These are likely individuals that would not hesitate to use the death penalty against another human being, yet somehow they humanize animals and prioritize them over human life - ridiculous.
I've never understood why people only care about when "cute" animals die, but don't give a shit when other animals they don't see in that way get killed.
Wha? Yes, the death penalty (something I don't agree with anyway) is given for MURDER, or mass murder of another human. Please tell me how the animal deserves the same treatment despite not committing any sort of crime.
I'm from Kenya, and I'd reallly not recommend such a strategy in most African countries. I can personally attest to the fact that rates of corruption are extremely high. Sure it's worked a few times (case and point Namibia) but I really doubt it's applicable on the wider scale
Let me see if i get it: You're wanting rich countries to be forced to pay a tax to keep animals alive in another continent? And you want to "cut corruption", a evil existant since humans stood up? Dude, reality. This is not Disneyland.
Adam actually does the opposite of ruining things (for me at least) it makes me happy to know that our world isn't as bad as it does to other information types
"But still", my ass. It might work, but it does not solve the problem. "But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad. ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter?? What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters? -That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
I did volunteer work when I was in high school at a lion breeding park . To fund the park they let 10 lions be hunted a year. 50 % deposit 6 months before the client came to hunt and the lions are let lose on 20 000 hectares . People would be socked to see how much it cost to run breeding programs Food Cleaning Vet bills Transportation Park maintenance Water Staff The list goes on Sadly anti hunting groups has closed down the biggest lion breeding farm. They were breeding 25% of South Africa’s captive lions that where relocated . So now it’s in 25% decrease
Animal breeding, especially carnivore breeding is fundamentally wrong. Not only are you keeping them in captivity and destroying their natural instincts but you're feeding them meat from slaughter animals. There's no reason to keep lions in captivity, it hurts them and other animals fed to them when they should be hunting in the wild like normal animals do. I'm glad that place got shut down, clearly one difference was made. People don't give a shit about animals if their population is high enough and never acknowledge the individual suffering. It doesn't matter how high or low their population is, nobody should be inflicting pain on them which is exactly what hunters and butchers do.
i disagree, the species doesn't ''need'' to exist, none of them care about the prolonging of their species. they do however care about fear and pain. the only ones wanting theyre species to not die out are humans. so to appease our desire to animals, it somehow becomes acceptable for us to kill a few, to ensure there are more...? if i wanted to kill you so that there are more supplies for the future generations (assume there is, as i know this is not the case) would you agree to die, because the needs of the many outweigh the few???
David Orson - of course no one would agree to that. We don't want to die. Interestingly though, are you suggesting you have the slightest clue how animals feel? About anything? I mean, it would be a faux pas to pretend you understood what a woman thought, but you have no problem claiming to know how an animal feels? We as humans are doing our best(sometimes) to keep animal species alive and sometimes we have to kill a few to save many. Your argument is bad because it does nothing but appeal to emotion and completely ignores logic. I should say though.... are you really fucking arguing that animals, if they had the intellect to argue this point, would choose species extinction over a select few dying? You are literally a fucking imbecile for this argument. I tried, so very hard, to not be an asshole to you, but jesus fucking christ are you stupid. Seriously.... shut the fuck up, you fucking moron.
+David Orson "none of them care about the prolonging of their species" -_-, Man you need to do your research before spitting out random crap. If "none of them care about the prolonging of their species" then no animals would be alive today. It's because they "care" about surviving is why there is such a variety of animals (as well as plants, etc.).
There is one. Think of it this way, if Harambe didn't die, you would never know who Harambe is, his existence would never be appreciated by the world. What do you value more, Harambe? Or the idea of Harambe?
"Rhino = endangered Chicken= definitely not" Sure, but if a cat or a dog got killed for fun the same people would likely be outraged. Not that I care about those hypocrites, I like meat, although I only buy it from a local farm that lets the animals roam and live freely.
Living in South Africa, I can tell you that hunting practices bring massive amounts of money into conservation. Some of the largest reserves here are solely funded on hunting income. And unfortunately, culling is a necessity. If you elephant population is too large and destroying the environment and negatively impacting other animals, getting a Yankee to Pay $250 000 to do the job for you ( in an controlled and regulated industry), that money benefits countless other animals and conservation efforts.
I take it back. I see the point of this, and this is an extremely common practice, like how hunting license sales can help fund wildlife reserves, and the system works...until it doesn’t. When an animals population becomes so critically low, that every death is visible, trophy hunting can do more damage than good. But for the most part, this can help smallish populations get larger.
I clicked on this video because I'm open-minded. I thought really hard and long about this video. The longer conservations help trophy hunters get what they want, the more rich people will start thinking trophy hunting is totally okay. In 2021, there were 56 million people worldwide whose assets were over 1 million US dollars (where 40% of them lived in the United States). To put it simply, if every millionaire in JUST the U.S. decided to pick up trophy hunting as their new past time, the 5,000 rhinos left are screwed. There's always going to be rich people, coming up into the world, decades and decades later. But there's not always going to be a population of 5,000 rhinos. All this does, is *slow* the progression of eventual extinction. Which is admirable, I guess... instead of *not* funding conservations. More needs to be done to actually stop this. Slowing it and stopping it is the difference.
It is kind of like an amusement park almost the guys pay entry(to kill an animal) to pay the wages of the workers(guards and maintenance) in order to sustain the park(animals' lives)
Well, Wiktionary defines pragmatism as: The pursuit of practicality over aesthetic qualities; a concentration on facts rather than emotions or ideals. That's Adam alright! Wiktionary defines idealism as: The property of a person of having high ideals that are usually unrealizable or at odds with practical life. Also accurate!
Trophy hunting is bad when the animal is already an endangered species that don't apply to those specific situations such as the gharial. Besides trophy hunting is more humane than factory farming.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
yes
Chemical reactions make more vid pls
Zimbabwe
@@evoqgaming8565 hey look guys! He's from South Africa and white... See no one cares
Breach 'N' Clear what are you talking about?
Breach 'N' Clear I never said anything
I hate people who say "I hate how animals are killed they are so cute, but this type of animal isnt cute so it can die"
I discriminate and target those with the tastiest meat.
Are all animals created equal? I personally would like mosquitoes to be driven extinct, (the damned bl**dsuckers!) and if the rare multi-warted toad (probably made up, but who knows?) also goes extinct as a consequence ... who cares?
i wonder what rhino and lion taste like.
if mosquitos went extinct the whole ecosystem would go to shit
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others (i.e. cuter ones)
Also another thing, trophy hunters collect one of each animal, so they'll only hunt one or 2, while poachers hunt as many as they can, ultimately hurting more animals
Trophy hunting+poaching worse than poaching.
@@ThirdFront did you watch the video?
@@joepat1279 Yes I did. I also looked at other sources which show "let the community decide" is sometimes not the best option (US civil war??). For instance, will you allow a child to be raped by a millionaire if he donates fixed sum to govt for helping victims of child trafficking?
ThirdFront that’s completely different, how could you compare raping a child for funding to trophy hunting for funding. Both are completely horrible but they also involve completely different situations.
Both trophy hunting and poaching are wrong, and I wouldn’t want either. But if I had to choose, I would want the one that helps funding to protect more animals. Again, both are wrong and you shouldn’t do either but also it’s not equal to raping a child for funding.
The lasting effects for a child who is raped is indescribable. And yes you could argue the lasting effects of killing species of animals, but again you shouldn’t compare them. They aren’t the same.
You asked if you would allow a child to be raped by a millionaire if he gave money to help prevent sex-trafficking. The answer is obviously, no. No amount of money is worth raping a child, even if it saves more. But killing one animal to save more isn’t as horrible. Wrong, yes. But not worse then raping a child to save more.
If more animals are saved because one died, then the ones saved could populate more. It’s not the best solution but it’s working. It’s not justified in any way, but I rather see more alive then more dead.
I am not saying that trophy hunting is right, it’s a very wrong thing to do. But I just hate the fact that you brought up raping a child for funding to be compared to killing an animal for funding. It isn’t and never will be the same.
@@thurdays_angel6442 Unless you see animals as one of "us", recognize their equal right to live on earth like us, and realize their survival is essential for our future, no conservation is possible. It would only be a farm, animal farm.
I’m not crazy about the way they fund this, but when I was in Namibia last, I visited Etosha National Park which is basically a giant safe zone for animals, and it’s literally guarded by a sizable portion of Namibia’s military. The border patrol of the national park is more impressive than the border patrol of some entire nations. As much as I dislike the funding, there’s not a lot of arguing that there’s a pretty serious net gain
I hunt and I am not crazy about the way this is funded either but there isn't a better way currently. Many celebrities have sufficient funds to purchase and operate game reserves but they seem to find it more convenient to virtue signal and stockpile their cash.
I'm from Namibia and I can tell you we protect those parks like America protects it's southern border and we protect our actual borders like America protects it's northern border.
@@suckerforpain7373 Ha, that's a good example! And funny too!
Plus the animals that are trophy hunted are generally bad for the species to be kept alive. Generally, aggressive males who can no longer breed and just kill younger males who can. No new babies if that aggressive male is left alive.
@@suckerforpain7373 I am remembering that.
Who else is happy that collegehumour is uploading Adam ruins everything again? 🙌🏼
We're pretty happy about it.
Look like I'm resubscribing
Meeeeee
Literally the only reason I'm here
Super happy! Why should only people who have TruTv in their cable package get to hear the truth!? Truth Bombs for everyone.
lion: *casually eats child*
Waits 7 seconds before reacting
Same lion, same
imminosus im just looking at the lion:...
also me:hey stop eating kids like that! don't you know how much it costs?
IMMINOSUS A few minutes later Baby:*Happy and riding a FUCKING LION*
Lion:*Sadder than the time I got rejected by my crush*
Children eats lions too
"Killing animals can help animals!"
Thanos: (slowly nods)
You see it's funny because it's true
Avengers: (Softly) don't
"But still", my ass.
It might work, but it does not solve the problem.
"But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad.
ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter??
What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters?
-That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
Slevin Channel then, how would you solve the problem? You bash them for not solving a problem, so how would you solve it?
@@slevinchannel7589 Cat Person has a point. It's one thing to point out the flaws of a solution, but it accomplishes nothing if you can't give a better one.
Sacrifice millions to save billions?
Lets say i empathize with Garrus Vakarian most of the time.
"Now i understand why the world needs cold hearted dictators every now and again... they don't give a damn about the consequences."
@@silverstar7843 yeah, but with trophy hunting they (the reservations not the people doing it) care very much about the consequences. That's what this whole video is about.
"But still", my ass.
It might work, but it does not solve the problem.
"But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad.
ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter??
What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters?
-That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
Aye
69th like
Slevin Channel
Are you...are you literally just copy+pasting this response? I’ve seen at least one just like this.
Man this really hurts. I've always been against trophy hunting but I hate that this is such a presentable argument. I never thought I'd see myself thinking controlled trophy hunting would be beneficial.
Caitlin The Insomniac Be proud. The first step to being a better human being is being open minded enough to know you only know as much as you know. Sometimes, you learn new facts and that challenges how you used to think. You can either think, A. Screw this bullhonkey, I know the truth, or B. Oh, this means I’ve seen a different side of the argument.
You should never EVER feel bad about picking B. because EVERYONE is wrong about something and people picking B. are just humble enough to admit that ;)
I agree. Be proud to be open minded and go hunting this summer!
Honestly, as a member of the FWC, the NRA, and as a strong advocate for sustainable hunting, I’ve never truly considered how much controlled trophy hunting could help out conservation efforts overseas (which is strange, especially since I advocate the benefits to general hunting here in the States). I just saw hunting these types of protected species as the equivalent to poaching. But after looking more into this argument, it’s easy to see the benefits of such a practice.
Oh didn't ya know.
To add, this is true. I have a a dear friend that is from South Africa. I asked her about this, and she confirms this. It does help the communities and does help with the preservation of the animals! Be comforted in knowing this. It is controlled and the money IS given to land owners!
Lion: Eats child
Father: Hay what the heck dude
Dude uncool
Nicolas Klatzer what did he say
*A MAN HAS FALLEN INTO THE RIVER IN LEGO CITY*
That’s the third this week.
Brotha
When i was a kid, i never understood it either. Until i realized that the old, grumpy animals that can no longer breed were killing the younger ones that can breed. That and when the population is to much in one area and they eat up all the food, they'll starve. That's when i realized they need to go.
Plus the old animals should be in pain so it is best to put them down
That makes so much more sense. Killing off the very old ones that can't breed and the ones that are killing the younger ones that can is a very great idea. However, I'm not enthusiastic about the 'if-there's-too-many-in-one-spot-thin-the-herd' method. Can't just move more of the breeding animals to other locations?
@@xrstevenson that’ll require money
Except trophy hunters don't kill old or sick animals. They go after animals in their prime. The whole POINT of trophy hunting is to kill animals in their prime, to have a good-looking trophy to gloat over.
You’re still wrong. As someone else said, trophy hunters don’t hunt old animals. They hunt the younger ones that look healthier and would look better on their wall.
Lion: *Literally eats a child*
The Dad: “Hey!”
I guess he's used to lions eating children
@@looeegy It is not as uncommon as you expect. 250 per year currently. It used to be far, far higher.
Looeegy G. Ah man I was gonna eat that
*that one guy from lego city comercials wants to know your location*
Build the rescue helicopter and off to the rescue!
Cool. Completely logical and factual argument that brings up some excellent points. You can also go into how properly managed hunting DOES help keep in check more wild and out of control populations.
Trophy hunters still don't get to call themselves "conservationists" though. That's for people that donate money to conservation without expecting to get to shoot something in exchange. Gamblers aren't "Supporting the Development and Local Economy of Las Vegas".
We aren't? Damn! That casino lied to me!
Gamblers can't support the development and local economy of Las Vegas because the majority of the stuff that's in "Las Vegas" is actually an unincorporated town called Paradise, and the stuff was created there to avoid paying taxes to the real Las Vegas (they only pay taxes to the county, state, and federal govt.). The Mayor of Las Vegas tried to annex Paradise but was rejected by the county because the county would get more revenue out of Paradise being an unincorporated town rather than it being an actual part of Las Vegas. So in theory, the gamblers are "Supporting the Development and Economy of Clark County, Nevada" or it's just going to the two corporations (and possibly the mafia) that run the place.
Bob Bob
I mean... My point was that accidentally doing something contrary to your intentions that's good by doing a thing (saving animals by killing them or increasing money flow by trying to win a sizeable amount from a place) doesn't make you a hero. So, not like it actually ruins my point.
Ok but don't think all trophy hunters are like this "dweeb" in the video. In fact, I don't think it's crazy to say that most are like the trophy hunters I know: people who are aware that the money they spend on their hobby is going to good causes and more often hunt not for trophy but for food.
DairunCates
I wasn't saying anything about your point, I just wanted to inform you about the misconception about Las Vegas.
So you're telling me letting another country to decide how to handle its own conservation problems without interfering in it with the (holier then art thou) is a good method? Amazing.
Some countries need to learn that
Right? Damn. Who would have ever guessed that?
In many ways world powers should let lesser countries try to govern themselves. While there should be some baseline for all countries like don't blow up the world, don't kill your own people and don't attack others, every other decision should be up to them. If we flipped the situation where a country like Uganda was running our national parks like Yellowstone, we'd probably be upset. And if we had severe poverty or job loss and the outside country was funding a save the wolves program, we'd probably be upset too. Conservation is a worldwide collaboration, but they do still have the right to do what they believe is necessary for their own wildlife and economy. We might disagree as westerners, but we're in far better positions. What we should be doing if we care this much is start relocating private nature reserves of African/Asian wildlife here in the United States. If US citizens are that concerned that African countries aren't going to protect Elephants/Rhinos well enough, then we should step in, offer money to buy private land in Africa or buy animals to be relocated to protected areas in the Americas.
@Facts aren't racist I mean, technically that's their problem so
@Facts aren't racist You gonna raise an army to invade over it?
In a parallel way, using paper can actually help save the trees. Most trees are clear cut not for wood, but to clear land for more profitable uses. The more demand we have for lumber and paper, the more we get "paper farms" and sustainable tree cutting, since companies that sell wood want to have trees in the future... to eventually cut down and sell once replacements have started growing.
The world has about 7% more tree coverage now than it did 40 years ago.
@Saffran No trees are permanent. Welcome to the life cycle.
@@AaronCMounts But not old growth forests.
Well trees don't feel pain so it's kind of a false equivilancy here. But it's close.
Problem is tree farms are like any other monocultures, they aren't all that valuable ecologically. Though they are a good carbon sink.
In countries like Zimbabwe, all wild game meat goes back to the community. It is illegal for a visiting Hunter to bring meat back to the United States. Anyone who has traveled abroad should know this as you have to fill out a customs declaration upon returning to the US.
Very true, nobody is going to argue that. However, the problem is inherently obvious that even legalized hunting encourages illegal hunting. Just this past year America was pissed off that a hunter had Cecil the lion killed, and to this day, even though the dentist who did it hasn't claimed full responsibility for the "mistake", nobody has yet to find the head of this well known mascot.
I'm fairly sure it's in the dentist's trunk, but conservationism has an incredible amount of flaws and loops:
"You can hunt these lions...BUT, you have to pinky swear not to hunt THESE LIONS."
Typical hunter: "Duuur...sure, whatever!"
shindean
You do have a lot to learn about hunting. Look at Kenya when they had legal hunting and now. Poaching has almost wiped out the elephant. Legal hunting ensures game animals have a place. For the future, watch Botswana.
It is not the responsibility of the hunter to know what animal to kill if he is paying a guide to help him find an animal to kill. Any good guide has that as part of the contract. That dentist got screwed over and is the one taking the blame because no one wants to blame some random African dude who no one can harass online.
Martin Stiastny
And as you type this, two more rhino species went extinct this year.
Conservation isn't defined as restoration, it means TRYING to keep what's left.
This may be the best of a bad situation, but it's still bad. Plus, lions are the keystone species of an ecosystem. So if you ever get annoyed with those commercials that feature a starving indigenous village that depended on the natural earth for nutrition in Africa, and it's asking for donations, then stop supporting the hunting of lions, or STFU.
shindean
You sir, are a fucking idiot. You know nothing of the benefits of hunting. The economies of countries or the attitude of the people in these countries. The value of these wild animals is on the ground, meaning, what is it worth to the people. They see lions and rhino and elephants as threats and dangers. They would rather kill them off and raise cattle. Hunters paying trophy fees and the industry generating jobs for the local communities proves a benefit to the people to not kill off these animals. Lose the emotions and use your brain.
*Lion eats baby*
Guy: Hey! >:(
he doesn't sound that concerned
Bro why you do this to me
Why do i find that part funny??? Am i a terrible person for laughing at something like that???
Nice stolen comment
Bro he's african, for him its another day in the office.
Save all the animals! Why do they have to die?
*Takes a bite out of a chicken sandwich.*
In which case trophy hunting is good.
Animal Rights activism and
Environmentalism are completely different causes and should be seen as such.
Don't you know animal lives matter just as much as people's!?!
*Gets bit by rattle snake*
I think it's more about the endangered species that pains me, chickens and other livestock are massively overpopulated by us. If we manage to get white rhinos overpopulated somehow then I will be impressed.
don't you know that killing people is wrong *eats arm*
but.... chickens or cows or pigs etc aren't *critically* endangered
I’m from Zimbabwe and this is so true!!!! People neeed to spread this cause the decrease of trophy hunting and people pushing to ban it is going to cause problems
Organised hunting etc is ok. But illegal hunting and poaching is where I draw my line
@@enter_feeling6042 Are there trophy hunters who don't draw the line at illegal hunting/poaching?
I guarantee the whack jobs at PETA have tried banning it, which wouldn’t be surprising with the amount of bullshit they spew on a daily basis
No. I’m not African. I’ve never been to Zimbabwe or anywhere like that. However, I still feel I can place moral judgement on immoral practices that happen over there. Similarly, I have never been to China, yet I can still judge the Yulin Dog Meat Festival and the abuse of the Uyghur Muslims as wrong.
Anyhow, killing individual animals to save species is still wrong. As important as saving species is, a species is not a sentient being, but an individual animal is.
If a man were to shoot a hundred children and then donate thousands of pounds to a children’s charity and save thousands of children’s lives, while the outcome of the good he did would still be amazing, it wouldn’t make what he did to start with morally right. It’s still mass murder.
Imagine someone were to do this with a particular race or nationality of people and offer rich psychopathic and sadistic outsiders the chance to shoot a few of them for fun, but don’t worry, the money that came from them would be used to fund healthcare and education for the remaining people.
If trophy hunters genuinely cared so much for conservation and wildlife, why are not just donating the money directly to wildlife conservation and rescue and education? Why are they spending time murdering innocent animals and not actually volunteering to help them?
At the end of the day, they are doing it because they enjoy it. They are psychopaths and sadists who get pleasure out of killing magnificent and beautiful animals, animals who may have been happy and have families, animals who have just as much right to live as they do, and taking their heads, horns, skins and tusks as trophies and posing, smiling, with the dead animals and having their photos taken like the sadists they are.
I honestly don’t know what the solution is, but this is not the solution. More funding is definitely needed to save the animals, but we need to find alternative sources of the funding and support that don’t involve murdering the animals needlessly. If we were to solve/reduce Africa’s poverty issues, that would go a long way here.
Btw, I am well aware that not all Africans are poor.
I am well aware that not all Africans are bad to the animals. There are conservationists and rangers who put their life on the line to protect the animals and I greatly respect and honour them for this.
I love how, years later, people are still bitching about this and think THEYRE smarter than the people actually dealing with these issues.
Woke > Logic
vomittie yesterday orange haired impeachment man and the suicidal rapist politician
There are experts are disagree on whether or not it’s effective
I used the animals to save the animals.
@@madhavilanka7787 make this public bro don't let it rot in a reply section
Thanos approves this message
Perfectly balanced... As all things should be
The hardest decisions requires the strongest wills.
hhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :))))) funny
I wanna bang death.
kingofnightmares Scrounging for scraps? These animals are on the brink of collapse, I saved them. Because you murdered two thirds of them
"I drink fifty gallons of water a day, but im not as thirsty as this girl"🤣🤣🤣 im dead 💀🤣🤣
But it was a male lion
@@whitexchina he was saying to the lion but pointing at the ostrich
Ha ha emoji funny
Basic
"But still", my ass.
It might work, but it does not solve the problem.
"But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad.
ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter??
What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters?
-That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
"Some of you may die,But thats the Sacrifice im willing to take"
-Lord Farquaad
"The hardest choices require the Strongest wills."
"There is no greater sacrifice than someone else's"
- Skipper
I don't want ANY animal to -
*Bites Into Chicken Burger*
... any animal to die EVER ! It's just not-
*Takes Another Bite*
... It's just not fair !
-says 99.9% of people
DigitalNinja ZA a
greatgood5 what 14 year old girls did you meet that liked moths... everybody hates moths
Then you find out that the meat in that burger was made using stem cells.
DigitalNinja ZA Chickens aren't endangered, numbnuts
Out of all of Adam's ruins, this one was the most life-changing for me.
@@freemang8189 because it makes sense
I remember seeing this and it suddenly clicking for me
Oh shut up
Because this is the first one that's actually true
Also hunting for non trophy hunting is much more humane then eating a Big Mac and some chicken wings
Thanks to this series, I am now so fucking obnoxious and condescending.
THANK YOU
Same though
Adam Ruins Everything: ending friendships since 2015!
I think you mean, Ruining Friendships...
CollegeHumor yeah pretty much but damn it feels good to be right
me
"why dont we ban trophy hunting and find a better way?" For the same reason you dont jump out of a plane and invent the parachute on the way down...
The Mad Hacker exactly
If you're on a public plane and you jump out you don't have to invite them not come with you being sucked out of the front door
Oh shit you have a point
They have tried other methods of fundraising for these reserves. They didn't just jump to hunting straight away, they tried tourism etc. But it didn't generate enough money especially for the landmasses/environments was talking about. I,.e. jungles and hot open plains in countries with growing populations with a need for increased farmland or at least increased farming yields.
Unfortunately, this solution works best in these areas. There are other places (usually near coasts that deal with endangered sea life and over fishing etc.) where farming fish, wildlife conservation and tourism brings in enough money to support conservation.
Although these places have completely different geography, population density and ability to grow food, access to water (mainly thanks to their geography) etc.
sorry just had this debate with my colleagues who say it's immoral but forgetting about nay practicality in the matter.
Well we are trying
But people donate money to Pandas instead of other animals
"I drink 50 gallons of water a day and I'm not as thirsty as this girl" is the best roast I've heard in a long time.
Lion eats child
Father: Hey!
Casual hey
Hey it was hard to make that child
Top 10 parents in anime
he's got like 7 more. he's used to it.
hey! down with this sort of thing
You forgot to mention that the meat is usually donated to needy locals.
SO TRUE!!
I totally support responsible hunting, especially deer hunting! A couple good bucks can feed a family for a year and it helps keep the population in check, there fore fewer deer on the roads to get hit by cars!
C.
That's got nothing to do with helping the animals though.
Yes it does, it makes the locals like the idea of investing in this kind of conservation even more
"I'm doing this for your own good.."
*proceeds to violently choke a lion plushy*
Hope she payed the fee. If she did not, it was worthless.
I read that as "choke down a lion plushy"
@@amox taxation is theft, I do what I want
Lol
Call the rspsa
In the area where I live, there's a species that needs to be hunted seasonally in order to prevent them from overpopulating and damaging their ecosystem, and the revenue from hunters does very much benefit the community as well as the ecosystem in some cases
What species do you mean, if you don’t mind me asking?
This happens in the US.
In Valley Forge, PA, the deer population can spike to where the deer starve, get forced onto roads and hit by cars etc.
So every 10 years or so, a handful of marksmen (not every Tom, Dick and Harry with a hunting license) come in and thin the herd.
The reason? All the natural predators have been gone. And with humans no longer hunting for food reliably, the numbers shoot up. The only other solution is to bring back the predators, but they also prey on people, their pets, and their children.
Let me guess, Red Deer? Feral Goats?
Animals don't overpopulate, only humans do and kill them when they walk into human territory. They also kill natural carnivores to begin with.
"I would like to bazooka one rhinoceros please."
Rendered Useless i rather poach one instead
Chuck Hunts oh but I am making a change to it by advancing the research of fusion power which shall replace any coal or oil burning function nuclear will stay though
GamingWizard your a GAMING wizard not a real wizard
The bazooka will damage the horn.
Man I do that in Far Cry 4 everyday
Breed my little money bags BREED.
He said breed? I thought he said breathe
Now that I think about it breed makes more sense
I am going to trip hey hunt Adam ...’s turtles
Nolan Bell I thought he said greed
Jay Kay Da great Jewish tricks
Crimson assassin I'll put captions on
"yes, i would like to bazooka one rhinoceros "
who wouldn't?
I would unless it's poaching! XD Gotta kill the animals to save the animals
If you did that, then you would burn the meat. You have to use a rocket powered harpoon.
That'd be 30000 dollars please. Thanks and here's your "I'm a rich jerk who shoots rhinos" tote bag
@TheAres1999 yes please
Farmer to Rhinos:
"Breed my little money bags, breed"
It's all about the Benjamins.
I thought it was "breathe, my little money bags?"
@@frut_jooos same as me lol
"But still", my ass.
It might work, but it does not solve the problem.
"But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad.
ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter??
What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters?
-That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
Thank you Mr transcript
Egoist altruism in a way
Alien watcher: You can kill Kim jong un for 9000000 space credits
Aliens:DEAL!
@Andrew Walker Jr. I think this was answered in Southpark s13e06 Pinewood Derby.
Space Cash isn't real
Space credits I think you mean starbucks
Space pirates stole their space credits😊
Alien: Aight time to hunt some humans for them moneyz!
Can we use the money to fund poacher poaching?
That shit does exist
That exists already.
Right he wants us to fund it further.
Sure, just fork over a few hundred thousand dollars and go shoot an elephant or something. Instant poacher poaching revenue.
Bounty hunters.
Sees the title,
Me: oh boy this better be good.
Also Peta liked this.
Random Otaku no, they wouldn’t. They don’t care about the facts
Andrew Oxford Yeah
Andrew Oxford I’m sure most of the members of PETA do care about facts. Unfortunately, it’s the crazies we usually hear about because they are usually the loudest and most entertaining. The media (news included) want people to watch, listen, and/or read their stories, so the crazy PETA member are what people see. So this makes people view organizations like PETA negatively and as a big joke.
PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They just want animals to be treated better, and that is an awesome cause. But the crazies give them a bad name. I’ll bet most PETA member are normal people that just want to help animals. Unfortunately, people only hear about the crazy members, who are most likely a very small fraction of the total number of members. Most, if not all organizations have crazy people as members.
So because the media wants people to watch, read, or listen to them, they are gonna report on and write about the entertaining crazy PETA people instead of normal, boring PETA people.
Peta liking anything is like an oxymoron. They hurt the cause just so they can make spectacle and gain for themselves.
@@PaintedDog That goes with most organizations. I will look it up later, but I am sure there are smaller grassroots organizations that do a better job.
I love how the dad says “Hey!” Like you would to your dog if they snitch a bit of bacon. Not livid- just a mild inconvenience and anger.
Or we could hunt the poachers.
If the bounties on those assholes was large enough, i'd say some game hunters would be chomping at the bit to claim the cash.
in my country, if you kill the bad guy, you are the bad guy
@@sandimiftah7147 if your country believes this, then it's also a bad guy who is trying to save itself.
@@samarth3957 to be fair, it makes sence, like, you don’t want some people to just go out and commit murder, but I don’t understand your point a bit
@@iamacatperson7226 yeah i wasn't clear.
What i mean is, if the bad guys aren't going to be killed, someone must be trying to save them, or bend laws so they can get away somehow. If a terrorist isn't given a death penalty, it means that country is overpowered by the ones who support the terrorist, which is not a good sign, the country might be corrupted to the point of no return.
I feel like Adam should have elaborated more on which animals are allowed to be tagged for hunting. Barring rare occasions, only older males of the species who are no longer virile are to be hunted. Protecting mating pairs and animals in their prime is how you get the population to recover. On top of that, sometimes the older, non-virile males will still maintain a harem, thus hogging potential mates for males in their prime. Even worse, in the case of black rhinos, the older males will attack and kill the younger ones out of aggression and possessiveness.
It might not be right for governments to set out warrants for endangered animals lives, but the individual animals which are chosen as targets are carefully vetted. Make your own decisions based off of this info
Also, when a man pays for the trophy hunt, he will end up supporting the host country in more ways than the initial fee. He will have to stay in local hotels, pay for tour and hunting guides to join his party, and rent vehicles and equipment. Since almost all hunters are supervised, the animals are hunted humanely, and without waste.
He had that woman assign that hunter to an old, dangerous rhino to demonstrate that.
It's as if you listened to the RadioLab episode on this topic this spring.
Trophy Hunters have never been interested in killing the old, etc animals! They always kill animals in their prime!!
@@lenitaa7938 how you know the law in Africa say that you only can hunt old animal and every animal they hunted is old
I'm okay with these African nations strategy on Trophy Hunting. But I really hate this ignorant Western animal rights groups who tell people what or what not to do even though the issues don't affect them directly. PETA, for example, has a pile of histories about their animal rights advocacies that had done harms more than good.
Same here. And it’s not the fact that people like PETA are wrong. With me, it’s the fact that they basically put themselves into echo chambers, completely refusing to rationally discuss topics like this like reasonable adults. THAT’S what ticks me off with groups like that.
Remember Peta is shit
I there's actually an Adam Ruins Everything episode on PETA
Who knows
fajar ahmad setiawan PETA are also hypocrites because they kill hundreds of thousands or even millions or more pets like cats and dogs even tho they are perfectly healthy or at least healthy for no reason including puppies and kittens.
When Trophy Hunting helps animals more than PETA.
@@k.4625 Are you saying the group that’s worse than hunters is good? Must mean hunters are good. Hunters actually use the bodies. They eat some of the meat, and donate the rest to local villages. They use the skin and bones as well. Nothing goes to waste.
@@Alex-dv5hm PETA just puts down every animal under its care and throws the bodies in unmarked pet semataries
@@InitialPC PETA makes more rules and laws under the guise “we’re just helping animals”. But the rules and laws they make are really just to get rid of hunters.
Actually hunters kill less animals than PETA
almost anything help animals more than peta
Adam turned into rare Pepe, All Hail Rare Adam.
Keenan Meyer day Boi Adam
Keenan Meyer Lmao
DigitalNinja ZA Dat Pepe Adam
Plz tell me that I made a new meme
phung tran Your wish shall come true. USING MY MS PAINT MAGIC!
Keenan Meyer
...
so basically, kill one to save a hundred. where have I heard that philosophy before?
Assassins Creed?
cows crossing a river full of piranhas.... you need to sacrifice one so the others can cross.
Saving private ryan
Yogg-Saron?
+Jean Canestri
I don't think you understand what piranhas are...
He forgot to mention that the hunters are assigned an animal and that animal is always older or negatively effecting the community or something. Typically it is older males who are not capable of reproducing but are still fighting for mates.
He kinda gave the example of that beign the case at 2:40 but he could put more onto it, yeah.
Too bad that the system is not that effective and hunters do not actually abide by the reserves rules. This is total bullshit.
That doesn't make any sense, animals generally choose strong mates and leave the weaker ones alone. This isn't a justification to shoot them.
And it just so happens that old males make the best trophies.
@@sachinraghavan4556
Do you go and just bother everyone on here?
I'm sure I'll be watching this video at my next dentist appointment
yikes bad joke and good joke
If I remember correctly, he actually didn't even have a permit to kill the lion, and did it illegally.
oh
At tooth:hurty?
he was a poacher and didn't go through proper channels. Guy is a criminal.
That's not what Harambe would think :(
R.I.P Harambe
#dixoutforharambe
#dicksoutforharambe
except he wasn't killed by trophy hunting.
how was that a Trophy Hunt??????? not even close to the same thing
Harambe died so that others could live. DICKS OUT
Pepe ruins everything
He's basicly the Donald Trump Pepe
Pepe ruins everything
i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/pepetrump.png?resize=600%2C600
I was looking for this comment.
He needs to do the pepe face.
My teacher showed this to us in class a couple years back, that was a fun lesson
teacher had a hang over that day. I know Im a teacher.
Remember that poachers also kill humans ! Not for the meat or ressources of course. Like any criminal, they cheerfully kill everyone that try to stop them, and the death toll is huge
And you know were there organs go? That's right black market.
"I hate that anyone would kill an animal"
I wonder how many spiders she's killed.
spiders are way different from things like rhinos :/, but it's true that a lot of "animal lovers" only care about the cute animals
Its just the whole cute animal bias that makes me mad. Like "Ohh don't kill cute rhinos and lions" but they probably don't care about warthogs.
Very true. And you know what? Bugs are animals! They're in the Animalia Kingdom!
People kill bugs because there are a fuckton of them and they can be pretty annoying for the most part. Also, it's pretty easy to step on a bug without even realising it. There's some cute bias, sure, but it's more about the quantity of the animal: no matter how many bugs you kill there's still gonna be billions, the same thing happens in places where rabbits are overpopulated, people just kill lots of them
Not me if I see a bug I leave it the fuq alone.
My caring for living things basically ends at plants and bacteria.
I know this is cliche* as fuck; but nothing is always so black and white. It's usually a shade of grey.
Cliche*
Exactly 50 of them.
My philosophy is that things in life are almost never what you see them as. That's why I don't judge people by what they do to me, maybe they were just feeling particularly irritable one day or depressed another.
Even grey is made up of black and white.
His smugness on this subject that appears to have poorly researched is gross. I lost a lot of respect for him and the show. news.janegoodall.org/2016/06/16/new-report-strikes-blow-trophy-hunting/
Like it showed near the beginning of the video, they usually only allow ruthless, ill or both animals to gain money. Basically, animals that could potentially harm others. This saves other animals as well.
So basically, sacrifices must be made for the greater good?
Nothing new, right?
it's a sacrifice if we need or want them.
I mean sorta. It's just the system that happens to work.
Well, it's the lesser evil or the "ends justifying the means" kind of thing.
Too bad we can't apply it to our own species. Too many of us in one planet.
When do you think a war is gonna start because of overpopulation?
All these people appalled at animal hunting and killing whole ripping through burgers.
True. You never see a vegan complaining about this.
ikr.
I have, a few actually, they also don't seem to know about land carrying capacities. Not understanding that permits in the developed countries like the USA and Australia, are to cull a specific number of animals that the local ecosystem can not support.
You're right. They're too busy telling people that they're vegans to begin with
LOL
Cows aren't exactly endangered though.
I was taking a shit when I got a notification for this
I was throwing up when I got a notice from this
You should probably wash your phone or something.
yeah, it didn't get on my phone though, I was getting water then ran to the bathroom where I threw up
why am I telling about this?
perfect timing :D
Namibian here. Poaching is the real evil. The Rhino horn trade is the worst thing that is happening to these animals.
Poaching, trophy hunting, and recreational hunting are all the same act with different end results.
Poaching and hunting are the same act. One is arbitrarily considered bad.
Cries over one animal being shot in a hunt, proceedes to eat meat made from the deaths of millions of animals yearly.
Careful, vegans might sue you... they have that copyrighted ;)
ikr it also hurts these animals due to deforestation and global warming
It's true. No death can truly be justified, but hypocrisy is common in "animal lovers" today. That's why I'm vegan, and not a hypocrite.
plants are living creatures too
#PLANTLIFEMATTERS
Sorry, couldn't resist :(
...and when those trophy hunters make their kill, other than some photos they don't do anything with the carcass (they often can't due to customs regulations) so the meat and hides get distributed to locals for food and use by the game wardens overseeing the hunt. So they paid big bucks to preserve an endangered animal, and fed some locals...a win/win.
I'm starting to think they should be able to claim the whole adventure as a charity tax credit!
This, IF the trophy hunter doesn't decide to go on illegal huntings with irregular local guides...
Michael McLaughlin they forgot the fact that some of the animals that are hunted are older and more violent, often killing and raping the younger ones.
Tusk,horn,Skull,hide,teeth,claw,skin etc all goes to taxidermy and Hunter Walls while meat goes to local stomach
@@NafkeNo you won't make this into a loophole for your tax exemption scheme. You have already a lot of loopholes already to not pay your taxes. Why you always want to corrupt everything with selfishness and greed. But you don't care as long as your sins are making you money.
She snapped a little at the end...
Also, hunting is better than poaching, and in some cases I think it´s even neccessary to control the populations of some species because humans wiped out most of the predators. So u can´t just prohibit hunting
I think we actually have made way more prey extinct then predators. Not a 100% sure about that, but pretty sure though
Mantis Toboggan
Murder and suicide is quite different
Mantis Toboggan
No, less dead corpses and a surviving species.
Mantis Toboggan
Thanks to poaching and habitat loss, not legal and controlled hunting.
hunting is way better than poaching
people who are experienced in hunting or people who are getting into it are always told to hunt animals in certain seasons, usually after breeding
this makes it so you don't kill off animals before they can repopulate
poachers on the other hand don't give a shit about the animals, they kill them no matter if they are endangered or not, whatever the season just to make the big bucks
also poaching is a illegal activity
As a hunter myself, yeah trophy hunting is looked down upon. Hunting for trophies is about the lowest it gets, now of course what you kill you take its trophies such as antlers or ivory’s, but that isn’t the reason to hunt them. It is for food and sport, which sport is also pretty low on the list for most people.
To me, my view is like euthanizing an animal that is a douche to other kind even an old one
Trophy Hunter bit careless to animal meat they Will donate the to needy local but they also eat Hunted animal even if Hunter don't want eat animal they hunt then there is local that will eat the meat
How much to hunt the poachers? I'd love a poacher's head on my wall!
me too
Depends on the price of the gun and ammo :)
The problem is that poachers are extremely well armed (sometimes better armed than the military of the country they live in) and many poachers have agents that would inform them of any attack...It's not fair but until a time when either the African nations are able to ask for help without fear or are able to handle themselves, poaching will be a problem
Either a .22 LR or a 20 MM AT sniper rifle, nothing in between.
We will pay you, come to my home country and you can sign up.
Let people pay for the privilege to hunt animals to give the money to preserve other animals and help the locals. This sounds like a win win.
Bryce McKenzie and they’re usually only allowed to hunt specific animals that can’t breed or are dangerous to others and the surrounding locals
Deathdragon is exactly right. They dont get to just go out and shoot the first lion or whatever they see, they are guided to the specific lion thats been murdering its fellows and is sick or too old to breed and told to kill that one.
@@ChuckieOutdoors Can you stop copy pasting the same comment?
Except it doesn't actually happen that way
"I see this as an absolute win!"
want to know what else cures hangovers, not drinking excessive amounts of alcohol
@morton christie it's called a joke mr Martian
Thank you Captain Hingsight!
(I’m not being sarcastic, I’m just making a south park reference).
Charles Calthrop you misspelled “hindsight”
Orange Soda
Pozole (Mexican Cow Stomach soup)
Mint gum + Coffee
Cold Compress
Lots of stuff really
I bet you believe in abstinence
I’m surprised this episode didn’t have a section about deer hunting. They bread like rabbits and hunting them helps the environment.
In addition, hunting and fishing licenses fund most states' conservation efforts. A lot of these efforts are facing budget crunches due to the falling popularity of those sports. I have zero interest in hunting and at best a tepid interest in fishing, but I've considered buying licenses just as a way of funding conservation.
They breed like rabbits because humans fucked the ecological balance by eradicating predators from areas or reducing thier numbers such as wolves and bears. Studies have shown that reintroduction of these species brings natural equilibrium. But then you get farmers complaining that they are vermin destroying thier livelihoods and scared local fearing for thier safety. We create wildlife issues with our selfish nature and total disregard for the wider environment then try and solve it by killing away the problem
@morton christie you have proved my point. Rewilding an area for game is not rewilding an area for conservation is it? The predator/prey dynamic works wonderfully when we humans leave well alone. Habitats flourish and animal populations self stabilise. As soon as we want to farm/build/live somewhere the predators are the first to go via safety concerns, then any other animal who causes any sort of inconvenience is declared vermin and culling takes place. Humans are the issue and always will be.
@morton christie how have I missed the point? We humans want our cake and to eat it too. We want a ridiculous amount of diversity when it comes to food that operates at a detriment to the environment and wild animals. Areas where predators exist will only exist for as long as humans dont want something from or to settle in thier area. Game reserves are artificial and many species have been introduced to areas for hunting, , then abandoned, then classified as a menace when people want to repurpose the land. My original post was about deer hunting and the original commentators insistence that deer were a pest and that hunting helped maintain thier numbers.l, when the fact was we created the issue by eradicating wolves, who themselves were seen as pests by farmers trying to protect their bottom line. We live out of sync to the rest of nature, changing our opinions and actions depending on the flavour of the day, this wont change until we factor in other animals needs aswell as our own. In reference to your last point, I find it a little arrogant and presumptuous to make statements about where I've travelled without knowing one iota about me. I've been to Africa a number of times, Botswana, kenya, the Congo.......and south Africa. I served in the army for 12 years and some were training, others, short UN mandated deployments and a few just personal travel. I've seen the corruption and disregard for land and life with my own eye, I've also seen compassion and those trying to help wildlife. I would also like to point out that I was referring to the worlds attitude as a whole and mainly western nations attitudes to thier own countries biodiversity and the mental gymnastics they use to justify thier total disregard whilst chasing a profit
They bread 🍞 lol
Hate to admit it but...you've changed my mind.
Mine as well
I have to keep my opinion a secret now
Is it wrong to wonder what elephant tastes like?
Jaxter100
No
Stephen Hill thank you
Adam is usually good at issuing challenges to conventional wisdom, but often he fails to consider rebuttals or counterarguments. In this case, what he's arguing for isn't even "unconventional," as legal trophy hunting is a common strategy for conservation groups and was even foundational to many older organizations' original intent. He's actually siding with the status quo here, and fails to consider that:
A.) Ethically speaking, the efficacy of hunting to generate revenue for conservation doesn't justify it in terms of individual animals' welfare. Conservation and animal rights are often conflated in the public eye, but there are major philosophical differences between the two movements, the former's focus on species and populations and the latter's emphasis on individual well-being being the most basic. If one believes individual animals' lives have value, then raising conservation revenue by selling hunting permits cannot be justified, any more than an orphanage would be justified in selling child slaves as a fundraiser.
B.) Legal hunting can itself encourage poaching in a number of ways:
* Encouraging perceptions of trophy hunting or wildlife products as luxuries in the public eye, thereby increasing demand for wild animals' products or the opportunity to hunt them beyond what the legal market can supply,
* Providing cover for smugglers to traffic illegal products under the guise of legal ones, using fake documentation,
* Exacerbating social inequities between wealthy foreigners and impoverished locals, leading to poaching out of economic desperation,
* Sewing resentment over the double standard that allows rich foreigners to kill animals while locals are punished for doing the same, sometimes leading hired guards to secretly allow or even collaborate with poachers as an act of political resistance.
Ofir Drori, the founder of the African conservation group EAGLE (Eco Activists for Governance and Legal Enforcement), addresses similar objections (both pragmatic and ethical) to the related issue of conservationists attempting to raise funds by selling ivory, in his article "Why We Should Not Sell Seized Ivory Stocks. Ever." He also offers a far superior approach to saving wildlife that doesn't require sacrificing them to trophy hunters, described in "Wildlife Protection - Fighting Back Harder."
No one said his argument was perfect. He's merely validating an argument many disagrees with.
+
+Animal People You have great points. Perhaps, though, if conservation groups' funding/focus was directed more towards legitimizing the "Legal Hunting" side of it, more effort could be spent to combat the poaching, which would happen with or without the legal hunting present. And as +The Flying Sphagetti Monster said, it's working. As in, the populations are stably increasing. For now.
I disagree with your ethical part, though. One doesn't have to believe that an individual animal has such immense value in order to believe in conservation. In other words, conservation groups don't have to be animal welfare groups.
This is where it gets important. Conservation groups are imperative to preserving the planet's resources, and they have to start now, not 10 years from now, because the animals they are talking about could all be dead by then. That's why their strategies have to take in mind the people involved in the area - they have to be plausible. Welfare groups, on the other hand, have a moral agenda. And while they believe that any animal suffering is wrong, they can feasibly take their time about it. After all, no dire consequence happens should they not achieve their goal in that 10 years. The movement can still go on.
Because of that difference, the conservation group would, to use your analogy, decide to "sell the child slaves" to "save the orphanage," even if the animal welfare group would not.
ahh ethics, that most wonderful of words to throw around when you want to say 'this makes me feel bad' but realize on some level that that won't be accepted as an actual argument. Much similar to the appeal to nature as a fallacy.
Sooo how are you gonna fund conservation then? Cause i am pretty much not gonna donate since i literally gives not fucks.
All ethics aside it works and it doesnt have any other solution.
Shouldn't the poachers be breeding the animals if they're so valuable to them?
Terreliv They just think in the short term. Besides the rarer something is the more valuable it is.
PhoenixAngel429 what will they do when they go completely extinct?
Samltiscool - they go bust
You can't breed an animal that isn't yours haha.
Even though folks in this thread touched on this, its mainly about quality of life of the animals. Reserves are basically massive enclosures that ensure the animals can be monitored and properly cared for without necessarily intervening too much in their natural way of things. Search "Kevin Richardson Lion Whisperer." He is an example of a conservationist that is also petitioning for proper quality of life for the wild animals. He himself is a lot more hands on than most, but he also is someone with a VERY rare gift. The poachers illegally kill animals on these large reserves to then sell the spoils to later on. If they could "breed" them they probably would and it would be more controlled, but to do that would cost a lot of money, probably more than they are looking to spend on getting rich quick. Poachers are just vile.
"Breed my little moneybags breed"
LMK🤣
Hunters care more about conservation than tree-huggers.
This is a very good one. It really pisses off hippies
Hippies ? dude you're soooo out of touch... they are called SJWLGTBPCs now :) Hippies are critically endangered anyways.
q means queer. the L and G are already there. Fuck your tungle fan
+Alex Tarau using every letter in the alphabet really doesn't help your cause lol
Hey! You fucked up mah B!
(I'm joking, you better be too.)
shut the fungle up you ufcign solid snale/ You fucking doh man. im dying.
I know in Michigan the nature center near me had like an emergency hunting weekend because if they didn’t a bunch of deer would starve to death
It happens when there is not enough predators. Kangaroos are hunted and many more still die during droughts, they are reintroducing dingos in some areas in the same way Yellowstone reintroduced wolves
More babies will be eaten!
@ because they didn't want their children and livestock eaten by wolves... how ignoble of them.
@@kennethfharkin wolves don eat ppl you clown show me the data
"Breed my little money bags. Breed" 😂🤣
Thanks for the information, I wasn't quite aware and will have to dig deeper into this. However, I've never understood why people have so much trouble with this concept. These are likely individuals that would not hesitate to use the death penalty against another human being, yet somehow they humanize animals and prioritize them over human life - ridiculous.
Every time someone researches an issue, an Adam gets his wings!
The earth is overpopulated by humans. Other animals are dying out. By the logic of the video humans should die.
Careful, don't want the rare and elusive Adam species to get to high and mighty.
I've never understood why people only care about when "cute" animals die, but don't give a shit when other animals they don't see in that way get killed.
Wha? Yes, the death penalty (something I don't agree with anyway) is given for MURDER, or mass murder of another human. Please tell me how the animal deserves the same treatment despite not committing any sort of crime.
0:49
*I AM A FROG MAN*
Ostrich girl: am I a joke to you?
I'm from Kenya, and I'd reallly not recommend such a strategy in most African countries. I can personally attest to the fact that rates of corruption are extremely high. Sure it's worked a few times (case and point Namibia) but I really doubt it's applicable on the wider scale
That speaks more to overall corruption in the African subcontinent, than an argument against conservation funded by trophy hunting.
So, what is your solution then ?
Jojo Dutt then what's your unbullshit solution?
Jojo Dutt I think he meant an actual solution applicable in reality, not lalaland.
Let me see if i get it:
You're wanting rich countries to be forced to pay a tax to keep animals alive in another continent? And you want to "cut corruption", a evil existant since humans stood up?
Dude, reality. This is not Disneyland.
Wow. This is like killing your uncle to save the rest of your family vs watching your whole family slowly die of poisoning right before your eyes.
Did Adam just explained, why The Purge would be actually a good idea?
Nope.
Nah man you're fucking thick headed
We are not endangered species
Yes
Not yet.
*Y e t.*
Woah an argumentative video on TH-cam that uses facts and statistics instead of sjw emotional rhetoric? That's awesome.
what facts and statistics you idiot? where the fuck are the reliable sources that prove this? Fucking gullible morons everywhere
+Dionys84 the sources are in the top right of the video
Not The Soap as if those fucks can't falsify data and statistics to push their agenda. Fucking gullible moron as I said...
It's better than having *no* data at all, and arguing based on what triggers you and your delicate sensibilities.
Dionys84 you must be the woman in the video.
Adam actually does the opposite of ruining things (for me at least) it makes me happy to know that our world isn't as bad as it does to other information types
1:51 I love how he says "and even hangovers" like it's more believable that rhino horn can cure cancer.
“I am a frog man”
- Adam conover
"But still", my ass.
It might work, but it does not solve the problem.
"But still" is used way too much in this video. The problem is still not solved and keeping things alive to have them be killed later for no real reason is still bad.
ALSO: Wanna bet how long it takes for the Ruthless Hunters to get smarter??
What if they, i dont' know, create an Academy for Ruthless Hunters?
-That might sound like a joke at first, but think about it.
Slevin Channel take your spamming a$$ and give a solution to the problem, or f*ck off
I bet he begged the animators to make him a turtle-man and they said no.
A shoutout to another episode where he signs a credit card receipt with "I am a Fraud Man" instead of his name.
I did volunteer work when I was in high school at a lion breeding park .
To fund the park they let 10 lions be hunted a year.
50 % deposit 6 months before the client came to hunt and the lions are let lose on 20 000 hectares .
People would be socked to see how much it cost to run breeding programs
Food
Cleaning
Vet bills
Transportation
Park maintenance
Water
Staff
The list goes on
Sadly anti hunting groups has closed down the biggest lion breeding farm.
They were breeding 25% of South Africa’s captive lions that where relocated . So now it’s in 25% decrease
Animal breeding, especially carnivore breeding is fundamentally wrong. Not only are you keeping them in captivity and destroying their natural instincts but you're feeding them meat from slaughter animals. There's no reason to keep lions in captivity, it hurts them and other animals fed to them when they should be hunting in the wild like normal animals do. I'm glad that place got shut down, clearly one difference was made. People don't give a shit about animals if their population is high enough and never acknowledge the individual suffering. It doesn't matter how high or low their population is, nobody should be inflicting pain on them which is exactly what hunters and butchers do.
TL;DR Spock was right the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one
or how they said it in Wanted: Kill one save a thousand
My thoughts on it as well.
i disagree, the species doesn't ''need'' to exist, none of them care about the prolonging of their species.
they do however care about fear and pain.
the only ones wanting theyre species to not die out are humans.
so to appease our desire to animals, it somehow becomes acceptable for us to kill a few, to ensure there are more...?
if i wanted to kill you so that there are more supplies for the future generations (assume there is, as i know this is not the case) would you agree to die, because the needs of the many outweigh the few???
I'm not a rhino.
David Orson - of course no one would agree to that. We don't want to die. Interestingly though, are you suggesting you have the slightest clue how animals feel? About anything? I mean, it would be a faux pas to pretend you understood what a woman thought, but you have no problem claiming to know how an animal feels? We as humans are doing our best(sometimes) to keep animal species alive and sometimes we have to kill a few to save many. Your argument is bad because it does nothing but appeal to emotion and completely ignores logic. I should say though.... are you really fucking arguing that animals, if they had the intellect to argue this point, would choose species extinction over a select few dying? You are literally a fucking imbecile for this argument. I tried, so very hard, to not be an asshole to you, but jesus fucking christ are you stupid. Seriously.... shut the fuck up, you fucking moron.
+David Orson "none of them care about the prolonging of their species" -_-, Man you need to do your research before spitting out random crap. If "none of them care about the prolonging of their species" then no animals would be alive today. It's because they "care" about surviving is why there is such a variety of animals (as well as plants, etc.).
Lion: eats a child
Father: aw man could you not I really liked him around
There is no price that can justify the death of Harambe :(
He died for our sins ;-;
how about 20,000 dollars
jesus returned as Harambe, and this time we shot him :(
I'm gonna slit my throat, and with my last dying breath write "Harambe sux dix" In my own blood.
Fuck these memes.
There is one. Think of it this way, if Harambe didn't die, you would never know who Harambe is, his existence would never be appreciated by the world. What do you value more, Harambe? Or the idea of Harambe?
How come everyone hates trophy hunting, but they're okay with the 2 billion animals that are slaughtered every week?
They only care about "touristy" animals and whether or no they're "cute".
Rhino = endangered Chicken= definitely not
"Rhino = endangered Chicken= definitely not"
Sure, but if a cat or a dog got killed for fun the same people would likely be outraged.
Not that I care about those hypocrites, I like meat, although I only buy it from a local farm that lets the animals roam and live freely.
just because we eat one species so it justifies us killing another species? great logic you have there.
But if you only kill animals that are past the age where they're likely to breed then the impact on the population is zero.
2:18 LOL wow wasn't prepared for that.
Then just a, "Hey!" lol like, "Oh, You little rascal!" XD
"give him back you little dickins"
5:07 applied to really anything is such a powerful statement
Living in South Africa, I can tell you that hunting practices bring massive amounts of money into conservation. Some of the largest reserves here are solely funded on hunting income. And unfortunately, culling is a necessity. If you elephant population is too large and destroying the environment and negatively impacting other animals, getting a Yankee to Pay $250 000 to do the job for you ( in an controlled and regulated industry), that money benefits countless other animals and conservation efforts.
Adam Frogover
XD nice one
I haven't thought off that.
This is so good. It's pissing the right people off.
I love it. watching people getting pissed off is fun :D
IKR
I can hear those self righteous vegan pussies screaming in frustration from here. And it's beautiful.
^ says self-righteous armchair skeptic bro
^ Mentioned in initial comment
I take it back. I see the point of this, and this is an extremely common practice, like how hunting license sales can help fund wildlife reserves, and the system works...until it doesn’t. When an animals population becomes so critically low, that every death is visible, trophy hunting can do more damage than good. But for the most part, this can help smallish populations get larger.
I clicked on this video because I'm open-minded.
I thought really hard and long about this video. The longer conservations help trophy hunters get what they want, the more rich people will start thinking trophy hunting is totally okay. In 2021, there were 56 million people worldwide whose assets were over 1 million US dollars (where 40% of them lived in the United States).
To put it simply, if every millionaire in JUST the U.S. decided to pick up trophy hunting as their new past time, the 5,000 rhinos left are screwed.
There's always going to be rich people, coming up into the world, decades and decades later. But there's not always going to be a population of 5,000 rhinos. All this does, is *slow* the progression of eventual extinction. Which is admirable, I guess... instead of *not* funding conservations.
More needs to be done to actually stop this. Slowing it and stopping it is the difference.
It is kind of like an amusement park almost the guys pay entry(to kill an animal) to pay the wages of the workers(guards and maintenance) in order to sustain the park(animals' lives)
Adam = Pragmatist
Veronica = Idealist
Well, Wiktionary defines pragmatism as: The pursuit of practicality over aesthetic qualities; a concentration on facts rather than emotions or ideals.
That's Adam alright!
Wiktionary defines idealism as: The property of a person of having high ideals that are usually unrealizable or at odds with practical life.
Also accurate!
Utilitarian vs. Deontologist.
That makes me think of zekrom and reshiram.
...ugh
Trophy hunting is bad when the animal is already an endangered species that don't apply to those specific situations such as the gharial. Besides trophy hunting is more humane than factory farming.
Ummm but it does its proven in this video
bich did u not listen to what he said
Are you stupid? You only trophy hunt animals that aren't endangered. Anything else is poaching.
+Brian ba, you're an idiot
brain ba listen to what I said. obviosly you as a complete idiot and chose to ignore my comment instead of taking it as a suggestion.
Lion: eats child Father: mildly annoyed
What can he do to a lion?
Adam can spout facts out all the way across a nation, that is impressive.