On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:39:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:47:50 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

(CNN)Authorities in Bangladesh killed six tiger poachers over the
weekend during a shootout in a national park, police said.

The 45-minute firefight erupted as police launched a crackdown in
Sundarbans National Park, according to SM Moniruzzaman, deputy inspector
general of police in Khulna Range. Five officers were injured in
Saturday's shootout.

Police recovered three tiger skins and five guns, Moniruzzaman said.
The world's critically endangered species
12 photos: The world's critically endangered species

Sundarbans is about 180 kilometers (112 miles) southwest of Bangladesh's
capital, Dhaka.

- - -

Now, if only "great white hunters" from the United States met the same
fate when they shot and killed beautiful animals for "sport."

Why do you think these were "great white hunters"?


Why do you think I thought the tiger poachers were "great white
hunters"? I didn't post or imply that. I was referring to the asshole
"big game hunters" from the good old U.S. of A. who are mostly white
bread. Oh, and the term may even be found in Wiki, to wit:

White hunter is a literary term used for professional big game hunters
of European or North American backgrounds who plied their trade in
Africa, especially during the first half of the 20th century. The
activity continues in the dozen African countries which still permit
big-game hunting, but the "white hunter" is now known as the
"professional hunter."[1] White hunters derived their income from
organizing and leading safaris for paying clients, or from the sale of
ivory.

The popular term Great White Hunter emphasizes the racial and colonial
aspects of the profession, as well as its colorful aspects. The phrase
echoes the privileged status of the white men who earned their living
this way. Depending on the author and intention, the term can be used
straightforwardly, in parody, or as a critique.

I'm using the term as a critique of the "professionals" and their clients.

Got it?

It is also a significant part of the economy of some of those
countries.
Without the hunters, there would not be much money for conservation,
so it is not as "black and white:" as you would want to believe. Folks
like PETA and the Humane Society may get a lot of press bitching about
it but they do not have many people throwing $50,000 - $100,000 to
conserve these animals. The hunters do.

The same thing is true in the US. The biggest source of conservation
money is hunters.

I did ask why the medical community seems to be over represented in
these African hunts. Are doctors frustrated killers or are we just
paying them too much?


Oh...it makes money...so, of course...

Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you
would just print it or borrow it.
Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend
to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach
them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families
starve.
Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the
majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and
provides some incentive for the people there not to poach.

BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers
who were not taking selected animals.

On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:39:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:47:50 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

(CNN)Authorities in Bangladesh killed six tiger poachers over the
weekend during a shootout in a national park, police said.

The 45-minute firefight erupted as police launched a crackdown in
Sundarbans National Park, according to SM Moniruzzaman, deputy inspector
general of police in Khulna Range. Five officers were injured in
Saturday's shootout.

Police recovered three tiger skins and five guns, Moniruzzaman said.
The world's critically endangered species
12 photos: The world's critically endangered species

Sundarbans is about 180 kilometers (112 miles) southwest of Bangladesh's
capital, Dhaka.

- - -

Now, if only "great white hunters" from the United States met the same
fate when they shot and killed beautiful animals for "sport."

Why do you think these were "great white hunters"?


Why do you think I thought the tiger poachers were "great white
hunters"? I didn't post or imply that. I was referring to the asshole
"big game hunters" from the good old U.S. of A. who are mostly white
bread. Oh, and the term may even be found in Wiki, to wit:

White hunter is a literary term used for professional big game hunters
of European or North American backgrounds who plied their trade in
Africa, especially during the first half of the 20th century. The
activity continues in the dozen African countries which still permit
big-game hunting, but the "white hunter" is now known as the
"professional hunter."[1] White hunters derived their income from
organizing and leading safaris for paying clients, or from the sale of
ivory.

The popular term Great White Hunter emphasizes the racial and colonial
aspects of the profession, as well as its colorful aspects. The phrase
echoes the privileged status of the white men who earned their living
this way. Depending on the author and intention, the term can be used
straightforwardly, in parody, or as a critique.

I'm using the term as a critique of the "professionals" and their clients.

Got it?

It is also a significant part of the economy of some of those
countries.
Without the hunters, there would not be much money for conservation,
so it is not as "black and white:" as you would want to believe. Folks
like PETA and the Humane Society may get a lot of press bitching about
it but they do not have many people throwing $50,000 - $100,000 to
conserve these animals. The hunters do.

The same thing is true in the US. The biggest source of conservation
money is hunters.

I did ask why the medical community seems to be over represented in
these African hunts. Are doctors frustrated killers or are we just
paying them too much?


Oh...it makes money...so, of course...

Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you
would just print it or borrow it.
Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend
to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach
them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families
starve.
Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the
majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and
provides some incentive for the people there not to poach.

BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers
who were not taking selected animals.



Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA
who paid for the privilege, right?

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:39:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:47:50 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

(CNN)Authorities in Bangladesh killed six tiger poachers over the
weekend during a shootout in a national park, police said.

The 45-minute firefight erupted as police launched a crackdown in
Sundarbans National Park, according to SM Moniruzzaman, deputy inspector
general of police in Khulna Range. Five officers were injured in
Saturday's shootout.

Police recovered three tiger skins and five guns, Moniruzzaman said.
The world's critically endangered species
12 photos: The world's critically endangered species

Sundarbans is about 180 kilometers (112 miles) southwest of Bangladesh's
capital, Dhaka.

- - -

Now, if only "great white hunters" from the United States met the same
fate when they shot and killed beautiful animals for "sport."

Why do you think these were "great white hunters"?


Why do you think I thought the tiger poachers were "great white
hunters"? I didn't post or imply that. I was referring to the asshole
"big game hunters" from the good old U.S. of A. who are mostly white
bread. Oh, and the term may even be found in Wiki, to wit:

White hunter is a literary term used for professional big game hunters
of European or North American backgrounds who plied their trade in
Africa, especially during the first half of the 20th century. The
activity continues in the dozen African countries which still permit
big-game hunting, but the "white hunter" is now known as the
"professional hunter."[1] White hunters derived their income from
organizing and leading safaris for paying clients, or from the sale of
ivory.

The popular term Great White Hunter emphasizes the racial and colonial
aspects of the profession, as well as its colorful aspects. The phrase
echoes the privileged status of the white men who earned their living
this way. Depending on the author and intention, the term can be used
straightforwardly, in parody, or as a critique.

I'm using the term as a critique of the "professionals" and their clients.

Got it?

It is also a significant part of the economy of some of those
countries.
Without the hunters, there would not be much money for conservation,
so it is not as "black and white:" as you would want to believe. Folks
like PETA and the Humane Society may get a lot of press bitching about
it but they do not have many people throwing $50,000 - $100,000 to
conserve these animals. The hunters do.

The same thing is true in the US. The biggest source of conservation
money is hunters.

I did ask why the medical community seems to be over represented in
these African hunts. Are doctors frustrated killers or are we just
paying them too much?


Oh...it makes money...so, of course...

Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you
would just print it or borrow it.
Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend
to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach
them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families
starve.
Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the
majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and
provides some incentive for the people there not to poach.

BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers
who were not taking selected animals.



Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA
who paid for the privilege, right?

....to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 8/11/15 8:47 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:39:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:47:50 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

(CNN)Authorities in Bangladesh killed six tiger poachers over the
weekend during a shootout in a national park, police said.

The 45-minute firefight erupted as police launched a crackdown in
Sundarbans National Park, according to SM Moniruzzaman, deputy inspector
general of police in Khulna Range. Five officers were injured in
Saturday's shootout.

Police recovered three tiger skins and five guns, Moniruzzaman said.
The world's critically endangered species
12 photos: The world's critically endangered species

Sundarbans is about 180 kilometers (112 miles) southwest of Bangladesh's
capital, Dhaka.

- - -

Now, if only "great white hunters" from the United States met the same
fate when they shot and killed beautiful animals for "sport."

Why do you think these were "great white hunters"?


Why do you think I thought the tiger poachers were "great white
hunters"? I didn't post or imply that. I was referring to the asshole
"big game hunters" from the good old U.S. of A. who are mostly white
bread. Oh, and the term may even be found in Wiki, to wit:

White hunter is a literary term used for professional big game hunters
of European or North American backgrounds who plied their trade in
Africa, especially during the first half of the 20th century. The
activity continues in the dozen African countries which still permit
big-game hunting, but the "white hunter" is now known as the
"professional hunter."[1] White hunters derived their income from
organizing and leading safaris for paying clients, or from the sale of
ivory.

The popular term Great White Hunter emphasizes the racial and colonial
aspects of the profession, as well as its colorful aspects. The phrase
echoes the privileged status of the white men who earned their living
this way. Depending on the author and intention, the term can be used
straightforwardly, in parody, or as a critique.

I'm using the term as a critique of the "professionals" and their clients.

Got it?

It is also a significant part of the economy of some of those
countries.
Without the hunters, there would not be much money for conservation,
so it is not as "black and white:" as you would want to believe. Folks
like PETA and the Humane Society may get a lot of press bitching about
it but they do not have many people throwing $50,000 - $100,000 to
conserve these animals. The hunters do.

The same thing is true in the US. The biggest source of conservation
money is hunters.

I did ask why the medical community seems to be over represented in
these African hunts. Are doctors frustrated killers or are we just
paying them too much?


Oh...it makes money...so, of course...

Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you
would just print it or borrow it.
Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend
to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach
them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families
starve.
Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the
majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and
provides some incentive for the people there not to poach.

BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers
who were not taking selected animals.



Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA
who paid for the privilege, right?

...to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy.
--


Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients
on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at
its finest.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:51:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/11/15 8:47 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:39:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:47:50 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

(CNN)Authorities in Bangladesh killed six tiger poachers over the
weekend during a shootout in a national park, police said.

The 45-minute firefight erupted as police launched a crackdown in
Sundarbans National Park, according to SM Moniruzzaman, deputy inspector
general of police in Khulna Range. Five officers were injured in
Saturday's shootout.

Police recovered three tiger skins and five guns, Moniruzzaman said.
The world's critically endangered species
12 photos: The world's critically endangered species

Sundarbans is about 180 kilometers (112 miles) southwest of Bangladesh's
capital, Dhaka.

- - -

Now, if only "great white hunters" from the United States met the same
fate when they shot and killed beautiful animals for "sport."

Why do you think these were "great white hunters"?


Why do you think I thought the tiger poachers were "great white
hunters"? I didn't post or imply that. I was referring to the asshole
"big game hunters" from the good old U.S. of A. who are mostly white
bread. Oh, and the term may even be found in Wiki, to wit:

White hunter is a literary term used for professional big game hunters
of European or North American backgrounds who plied their trade in
Africa, especially during the first half of the 20th century. The
activity continues in the dozen African countries which still permit
big-game hunting, but the "white hunter" is now known as the
"professional hunter."[1] White hunters derived their income from
organizing and leading safaris for paying clients, or from the sale of
ivory.

The popular term Great White Hunter emphasizes the racial and colonial
aspects of the profession, as well as its colorful aspects. The phrase
echoes the privileged status of the white men who earned their living
this way. Depending on the author and intention, the term can be used
straightforwardly, in parody, or as a critique.

I'm using the term as a critique of the "professionals" and their clients.

Got it?

It is also a significant part of the economy of some of those
countries.
Without the hunters, there would not be much money for conservation,
so it is not as "black and white:" as you would want to believe. Folks
like PETA and the Humane Society may get a lot of press bitching about
it but they do not have many people throwing $50,000 - $100,000 to
conserve these animals. The hunters do.

The same thing is true in the US. The biggest source of conservation
money is hunters.

I did ask why the medical community seems to be over represented in
these African hunts. Are doctors frustrated killers or are we just
paying them too much?


Oh...it makes money...so, of course...

Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you
would just print it or borrow it.
Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend
to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach
them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families
starve.
Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the
majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and
provides some incentive for the people there not to poach.

BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers
who were not taking selected animals.



Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA
who paid for the privilege, right?

...to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy.
--


Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients
on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at
its finest.


Now you're catching on.

Which would you prefer for an old lion, death by starvation or a quick shot to the
heart.

Oh, you're a socialist. Probably death by starvation 'cause it's 'cleaner', eh?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 8/11/15 8:54 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:51:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/11/15 8:47 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:39:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:47:50 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

(CNN)Authorities in Bangladesh killed six tiger poachers over the
weekend during a shootout in a national park, police said.

The 45-minute firefight erupted as police launched a crackdown in
Sundarbans National Park, according to SM Moniruzzaman, deputy inspector
general of police in Khulna Range. Five officers were injured in
Saturday's shootout.

Police recovered three tiger skins and five guns, Moniruzzaman said.
The world's critically endangered species
12 photos: The world's critically endangered species

Sundarbans is about 180 kilometers (112 miles) southwest of Bangladesh's
capital, Dhaka.

- - -

Now, if only "great white hunters" from the United States met the same
fate when they shot and killed beautiful animals for "sport."

Why do you think these were "great white hunters"?


Why do you think I thought the tiger poachers were "great white
hunters"? I didn't post or imply that. I was referring to the asshole
"big game hunters" from the good old U.S. of A. who are mostly white
bread. Oh, and the term may even be found in Wiki, to wit:

White hunter is a literary term used for professional big game hunters
of European or North American backgrounds who plied their trade in
Africa, especially during the first half of the 20th century. The
activity continues in the dozen African countries which still permit
big-game hunting, but the "white hunter" is now known as the
"professional hunter."[1] White hunters derived their income from
organizing and leading safaris for paying clients, or from the sale of
ivory.

The popular term Great White Hunter emphasizes the racial and colonial
aspects of the profession, as well as its colorful aspects. The phrase
echoes the privileged status of the white men who earned their living
this way. Depending on the author and intention, the term can be used
straightforwardly, in parody, or as a critique.

I'm using the term as a critique of the "professionals" and their clients.

Got it?

It is also a significant part of the economy of some of those
countries.
Without the hunters, there would not be much money for conservation,
so it is not as "black and white:" as you would want to believe. Folks
like PETA and the Humane Society may get a lot of press bitching about
it but they do not have many people throwing $50,000 - $100,000 to
conserve these animals. The hunters do.

The same thing is true in the US. The biggest source of conservation
money is hunters.

I did ask why the medical community seems to be over represented in
these African hunts. Are doctors frustrated killers or are we just
paying them too much?


Oh...it makes money...so, of course...

Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you
would just print it or borrow it.
Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend
to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach
them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families
starve.
Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the
majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and
provides some incentive for the people there not to poach.

BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers
who were not taking selected animals.



Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA
who paid for the privilege, right?

...to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy.
--


Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients
on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at
its finest.


Now you're catching on.

Which would you prefer for an old lion, death by starvation or a quick shot to the
heart.


Are we talking about the king of the beasts or you? Of course, you're
just an old, toothless pussycat.

Keyser Söze
- show quoted text -
"Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients
on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at
its finest."


To bad those brave great white hunters and their apologists, like the JohnnyMop, wouldn't go and select some ISIS fighters to shoot. It might put some real meaning into their selfish lives.

True North wrote:
Keyser Söze
- show quoted text -
"Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients
on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at
its finest."


To bad those brave great white hunters and their apologists, like the
JohnnyMop, wouldn't go and select some ISIS fighters to shoot. It might
put some real meaning into their selfish lives.

Oh, they don't critters who can shoot back.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote:

Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you
would just print it or borrow it.
Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend
to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach
them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families
starve.
Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the
majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and
provides some incentive for the people there not to poach.

BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers
who were not taking selected animals.



Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA
who paid for the privilege, right?

I already said I think trophy hunting is silly and they would be
better off doing their hunting with a tranquilize dart gun, helping
the vets take care of the animals but the fact remains, the only way
these countries can get the money to run these conservation programs
is to allow some limited hunting. (generally targeting old animals
that will be dying soon anyway)

If you people bitching about this would get off your wallets and send
them $50,000- $60,000 each like the dentist, you could save some
animals but it is easier to just bitch about it.

The same is true here. If PETA put as much money into habitat
restoration as Ducks Unlimited, they would have standing when they
bitch about duck hunting.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/11/15 8:47 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:39:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:47:50 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

(CNN)Authorities in Bangladesh killed six tiger poachers over the
weekend during a shootout in a national park, police said.

The 45-minute firefight erupted as police launched a crackdown in
Sundarbans National Park, according to SM Moniruzzaman, deputy inspector
general of police in Khulna Range. Five officers were injured in
Saturday's shootout.

Police recovered three tiger skins and five guns, Moniruzzaman said.
The world's critically endangered species
12 photos: The world's critically endangered species

Sundarbans is about 180 kilometers (112 miles) southwest of Bangladesh's
capital, Dhaka.

- - -

Now, if only "great white hunters" from the United States met the same
fate when they shot and killed beautiful animals for "sport."

Why do you think these were "great white hunters"?


Why do you think I thought the tiger poachers were "great white
hunters"? I didn't post or imply that. I was referring to the asshole
"big game hunters" from the good old U.S. of A. who are mostly white
bread. Oh, and the term may even be found in Wiki, to wit:

White hunter is a literary term used for professional big game hunters
of European or North American backgrounds who plied their trade in
Africa, especially during the first half of the 20th century. The
activity continues in the dozen African countries which still permit
big-game hunting, but the "white hunter" is now known as the
"professional hunter."[1] White hunters derived their income from
organizing and leading safaris for paying clients, or from the sale of
ivory.

The popular term Great White Hunter emphasizes the racial and colonial
aspects of the profession, as well as its colorful aspects. The phrase
echoes the privileged status of the white men who earned their living
this way. Depending on the author and intention, the term can be used
straightforwardly, in parody, or as a critique.

I'm using the term as a critique of the "professionals" and their clients.

Got it?

It is also a significant part of the economy of some of those
countries.
Without the hunters, there would not be much money for conservation,
so it is not as "black and white:" as you would want to believe. Folks
like PETA and the Humane Society may get a lot of press bitching about
it but they do not have many people throwing $50,000 - $100,000 to
conserve these animals. The hunters do.

The same thing is true in the US. The biggest source of conservation
money is hunters.

I did ask why the medical community seems to be over represented in
these African hunts. Are doctors frustrated killers or are we just
paying them too much?


Oh...it makes money...so, of course...

Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you
would just print it or borrow it.
Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend
to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach
them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families
starve.
Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the
majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and
provides some incentive for the people there not to poach.

BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers
who were not taking selected animals.



Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA
who paid for the privilege, right?

...to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy.
--


Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients
on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at its finest.

Yup. When I duck hunted about 30 years ago. Was also a Ducks Unlimited
committee member. We raised lots of money for duck habitat. How much did
the PETA, VEGAN socialist communities contribute?