The Big Game II

I wrote about the hunting of that giraffe the other day and pretty much said all big game hunting is wrong, mmmkay. (I basically used it as analogy of politics, the big fish eat the little fish, not my problem give me some, etc). But is it that clear cut?

What if the big game hunters pay a lot of money to hunt and their hunting is carefully controlled to suit conservation. Their money also goes into conservation and into the wider economy of a developing country. Now where’s my anti-colonialist ire? Is it always wrong, or is it OK if carefully controlled? If anyone ever reads this, why not tell me what you think…. You can talk to me.


The Big Game I

On 4 August the Guardian reported:

A big-game trophy collector from Idaho has been criticised by animal rights activists over online images of herself posed with the carcasses of a giraffe and other wildlife she killed during a recent guided hunt in South Africa.

Sabrina Corgatelli, an accountant for Idaho State University, appeared on NBC’s Today show on Monday to defend trophy hunting amid mounting international outrage over the killing in July of Cecil, Zimbabwe’s most famous lion, by an American dentist.

Wouldn’t she rather pose for a picture with a live giraffe? If I had the choice I would want a photo with a live one, that would be a memorable experience in a good way, not standing among the contorted corpse of one I’ve just killed with powerful, advanced machinery.

We have greater intellect and so we can build guns that make killing animals very easy, but that intellect should also tell us that preying on the weak for sport in this way is entirely wrong. It’s everything that’s wrong with the world – abuse of the weak by the powerful – writ large.