Some forms of hunting unfair

while perusing the Web, I came across a safari site, African Safari Consultants. For only $1,200 per day and a $4,000 trophy fee, I found I can bag an honest-to-goodness Zimbabwe lion. \nI even get to stay at a "luxury safari chalet" with professional chefs, have excellent wine served with my meals and drink cocktails in the evenings. I can have my professional guide drive me to the bush in the Land Rover. After he points out my lion, I get to kill the ferocious animal from about 100 yards away with a high-powered hunting rifle. I can even be back in time to recount my exploits over evening cocktails. \nAll of this fun and excitement is thanks to the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources, better known by its cozier name, Campfire. The program empowers the people of Zimbabwe by allowing property owners to claim ownership of the wildlife on their land. Its goal is to make the local villagers view the wildlife as valuable resources, not as crop-destroying, people-eating pests. \nThe largest use of this resource so far is to attract hunters, but this is not a problem. Unlike tourists, they use few of the villagers' resources, such as water. They don't trample the shrubbery and don't mind the lousy infrastructure. (Like real men, hunters enjoy roughing it). According to the people at Campfire, the area does not attract that much tourism, because of the low game population.\nUnder the auspices of this program, the proud people of Campfire proclaimed 400,000 poor Zimbabweans earned $1,516,693, or $3.79 apiece, in one year. If hunters don't have cash, they can even pay the starving villagers in corn.\nI know what you're thinking: "Oh no, not another Mother Earth-loving, tree-hugging, anti-gun supporting liberal piping up," but you're wrong. I don't mind most forms of hunting. If hunters want to wake up at 4 a.m., hike into the woods, spread deer urine all over themselves and wait in a tree to kill overpopulated, walking road hazards, that is their business. We have to take care of the problem somehow, because hunters have killed most of the deers' natural predators. I don't believe most Americans want mountain lions, wolves and bears reintroduced into their backyards. God designed deer to be killed and eaten. That's why they always look so nervous.\n My problem is with the types of animals killed in Africa. Hunters can legally kill elephants, lions, leopards, rhinos or giraffes. What is the purpose of killing a giraffe? Is it the thrill of stalking a two-story leaf-eater from a Land Rover and sniping it from 100 yards away? Do we actually need fewer of these animals on the planet?\n Some hunters say legalized hunting cuts down on poaching and promotes conservation. Villagers can make more money by charging for hunting rather than poaching, and since making money is important, they will be more apt to protect the animals. \nIs the solution to a problem the institution of a lesser form of the problem? You're trying to tell me we can save endangered species animals by killing them? At any rate, the villagers are only making slightly less that $4 each. No matter how poor I was, I wouldn't let some guy shoot a bald eagle in my backyard for a McDonald's extra value meal.\nOthers say wild animals are renewable resources. Hunters have an interest in keeping nature healthy so they have something to hunt. Killing an animal is like picking an apple. If the herd is healthy, another animal will take its place, hunters say. But if animals are a renewable resource, why are they endangered? It's not as if hunters never hunted a species to extinction. \nWhere is the sport in Africa? A professional hunter drives guests from the hotel to the animal. He does everything but pull the trigger. I could kill a lion in Africa this way, and I have never hunted in my life. A 2-year-old could do it. \nSave your money and keep hunting deer. They are much harder to kill than a giraffe or a rhino, and they are expecting you.