*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Thanks for the response, and thanks for asking.

An increase in desire for trophies increases the desire for the animals, thereby incentivizing increasing and protecting the populations. A ban has an antithetical effect: reducing the desire for trophies, reducing the desire for the animals, and reducing the desire to increase and protect the populations.

There is a wealth of history of this playing out, and it is an area where there is little disagreement among economists.

I don't see how having more elephants or any other trophy animal is necessarily a positive for the animal (assuming we're interested in their collective happiness or whatever you want to call it). Certainly not if some proportion of them are going to get shot and killed every year.

I think the idea of 'let's look after these animals so we can shoot them for fun' is kind of perverse really. How about looking after them and not shooting them?

[wufwugy]

I think the idea of 'let's look after these animals so we can shoot them for fun' is kind of perverse really. How about looking after them and not shooting them?

The world is kind of perverse.

Looking after them and not shooting them has been tried. A lot. And it yields declining populations, extinction, and black market abuse that yields significant suffering of the animals.

[oskar]

The world is kind of perverse.

Looking after them and not shooting them has been tried. A lot. And it yields declining populations, extinction, and black market abuse that yields significant suffering of the animals.

horseshit.

Write an open letter to the Jane Goodall foundation that they should really consider Gorilla hunting permits, why don't you.

[wufwugy]

Let me know when you care what somebody else has to say.