It’s not often that I vehemently disagree with something that Prince William says, but claiming that trophy hunting is acceptable in some cases? Nope. Sorry Wills, you’ve lost me on this one.
Speaking with ITV News earlier this week, the Duke of Cambridge discussed his commitment to conservation and protecting endangered species throughout the world. But after several minutes discussing endangered species rates and the radical action that is required, the future King then claimed that “there is a place for commercial hunting in Africa as there is around the world.
“It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but the arguments for regulated, properly controlled commercial hunting is that the money that goes from shooting a very old infirm animal goes back into the protection of the other species,” he continued.
“So when one is infertile or at the end of his life, if someone out there wants to pay that money – and it wouldn’t be me – but if somebody did, as long as that money goes back into the protection of that species then it is a justifiable means of conserving species that are under serious threat.”
Except the problem is it almost never happens that way, and as president of United for Wildlife and a patron of the Tusk Trust, Prince William should know that.
Trophy hunters don’t travel all the way to Africa just to shoot an old, infertile, “hunt-friendly” animal. They go to kill the animal with the greatest bragging rights and highest status attached to it. They go to kill animals like Cecil the lion.
Despite his known dislike for ivory and saying that it has no place on a modern-day mantle piece, Prince William and his younger brother Prince Harry are known to be keen hunters (some outdated traditions of British aristocracy will never truly die).
Two years ago a picture of Harry on a 2004 hunting trip emerged, the Prince crouched over a water buffalo with a rifle in hand, looking proud of his recent kill.
Prince William needs to spend some more time with outspoken animal rights activist Ricky Gervais, it seems…
Watch the full interview here.
PM: Israel Launches Missiles At Iran, Male Violence A Priority Says Attorney-General
The Quicky
Taylor Swift & The Birthday Card Relationship Test
Mamamia Out Loud17-Year-Old Fletcher Crowley Became Paraplegic Six Months Ago
No Filter
Top Comments
I have a lot of experience working in this field & while I personally think any type of killing is abhorrent, there are actually many case studies supporting the controlled killing of some animals in some cases. One kill at $100,000 can support many communities, provide jobs & education for locals. And any type of concrete conservation pretty much 100% has to come from local communities, so it's vital to work with them & provide opportunity so they don't have to poach for an income. It's a horrible choice to make but one lion sustainably shot for $100,000 is better than 10 lions poached for the illegal wildlife trade and at no benefit to communities. Please don't hate me for saying this, but it HAS worked in parts of Africa.
Thank you for the post ingoz, I think many are blinded by their outrage before thinking about the ultimate benefits.
I don't hunt or shoot either.
Well there are some people who quite like torturing animals, maybe they are prepared to pay big bucks for that? After all if it gives the local village money why not?
There are other people who would quite enjoy killing, beating or raping a human. So perhaps the village can choose someone to be sacrificed, best to pick someone young and fit as it isn't much of a challenge if they are old, and then after a group of hunters chase them, catch them beat them rape them then murder them, then they can give the village a few hundred thousand.
It's a win win situation for everyone, the hunters get to indulge their blood lust and the village gets lots of money.
Yeah I could see how this could work, I just feel the current situation of only hunting animals isn't really reaching the full money making potential that it could.
Of course there is another alternative, people could choose not to hunt and just donate thousands of dollars to an African charity instead. Or they could choose to spend the money on a different type of holiday instead where nothing has to be killed for their enjoyment.
Whether people chose to hunt or not isn't the problem. One animal here & there does not cause a species to become critically endangered. The problem are the poachers who just don't care and can make huge profits from the illegal wildlife trade. Surely it's better to train locals to be patrollers and monitor protected species in their ares? I've worked on such projects and they do work - but need funding!
Also, Im not sure what your gross rape comment is all about. I won't bother with whatever that meant.
At this point, I'd have to say we have something wrong with our economic system. why does the Lion have to be shot at all? Why does the shooting of Lions have to be experienced?
If it is about the money, then why not just have the experience of handing $100,000 over to the local community - I guarantee that will be more enjoyable than shooting a Lion.