Is killing an essential ingredient in conservation? Big game hunters argue that the hunting industry provides the largest refuge for endangered species. Paradoxical and controversial, this notion has birthed an African goldmine: Zoos with a twist, murder vacations with live souvenirs.
A pricey gift shop of blood thirst, hunting resorts offer a controlled and abbreviated experience of inter-species domination. Some defend the slaughter party with an ancient book, others with a love for the very animals they auction off to North American bullets.
Outside of these death camps, lay sanctuaries that bleed money rather than bathe in it. They too are sitting on a goldmine, however. Their goods just are not as easy to push. The resorts believe selective killing will ensure a species' survival, while the sanctuaries engage in non-lethal harvesting of the majestic animals.
Both parties take in order to preserve. Whether lives or horns, these operations require revenue to fund sustainability. When these two pools of thought intersect, an ugly debate sparks, and the well- being of the animals gets pushed more and more to the periphery.
Hunting is becoming less and less a sport as the commercial appeal grows. But was the sport ever rational? Did it possess an ecological merit? The dangerous five have their nomenclature for good reason. Perhaps wildlife does require a sportsman's buffer to protect native's livelihoods.
Industry shapes legislature. A brutal reality that puts wild animals' futures in the balance. Humanity has ascribed themselves with the responsibility of protecting these beasts. A noble pursuit that has brought division and bickering. Humanity is most concerned with their own offspring, no matter how much it preaches conservation.
