Remember
this: Thought and reason see through to the human being.
In
the story of early human development, humans lost most of their hair.
When early humans lost their hair, they wore the fur and skins of
animals to protect them from the elements of Nature.
We
learned the importance of animals as mutual beings, living in and
outside of our daily lives. We realized the animals ability to
sustain us.
Over
time, animals became important. Humans elevate animals above
themselves, and treat animals as family members. This is not always
true when you consider animal abuses. Somewhere in time, some have
learned to treat animals as inanimate objects to be used and
discarded, regardless of care. People are treated just as poorly when
you look at human trafficking. Animals and people can be considered
valueless. It doesn't take much work to find photographs and
information that illustrate animals and humans are in equally
disturbing conditions.
One
animal in particular, humanity has treated callously. It is the human
animal.
Wildlife
and domestic animals have value as resources. More so, they are
living commodities.
What
happens when resources and living commodities outweigh the value of a
non-commodity human being?
I
removed my mental post-it note of African hunting and wildlife. What
did I have left over in this story of Africa?
African
wildlife and trophy hunting is a people problem.
There
was a quote from Safari Club International, “The surest way to
persuade an indigenous population to preserve animals is by giving
those animals financial value. And the surest way to give them value
is to allow them to be hunted, with the locals getting the proceeds.”
I
took a pause. Translated this means, "let me get my foot in the door."
Proceeds.
Is this delineated by locals getting meat and someone else getting money? Exactly what does that monetary audit entail, when you want to see an itemized list of where every dollar goes, for the sake of argument. Someone should be able to provide ledgered proof as to expenditures and profits.
Is this delineated by locals getting meat and someone else getting money? Exactly what does that monetary audit entail, when you want to see an itemized list of where every dollar goes, for the sake of argument. Someone should be able to provide ledgered proof as to expenditures and profits.
It
is the same with wildlife conservation, show an itemized audit of
services and expenditures, programs, who paid in and out, how money
was used, and where the benefit was generated in expected outcomes?
Merely
saying hunters put money into a wildlife conservation is not going to
be enough to illustrate a point in an argument for or against hunting
in general. It is saying, “Take my word for it. Trust me, I am a
hunter.”
We
now live in a world of suspicions, act accordingly.
I
thought about ownership.
People
tend to need the idea of ownership of something in order to value the
item to protect it. Otherwise, anyone can arrive and tell them what
to do with what they have, in the way of resources. If you don't have
ownership, you have no say.
Here
this concept is illustrated by tribes of North America. Water quality
is one of the main concerns to living a healthy, happy life. this is true for living thing. Something that complicatedly simple, gives the world's population a vested interest. Water runs through land. Anything done in water or on land
affects the system. Ownership and respect of something not truly
owned, gives them the courage to protect and ensure the quality and
uses of resources. That is for everyone. Yet, governments give them
grief when they revolt. Why is it hard to understand when a human
person wants water quality to be important and something to protect?
Back
to Africa.
One
could say there should be no ownership, it is for all. When a foreign
entity comes in with an agenda, their whole business is outlined by
ownership based on legalities in one way or another. Ownership has to
be defined so existing people will not get taken advantage of by
foreigner looking to intervene on their behalf for resources,
revenue, and control.
With
indigenous peoples, ignorance of foreign governance, the ideology of
colonialism, and having those conditions forced off on primitive
peoples have caused dreadful damage that lasts over lifetimes. This
damage is to the people, wildlife, and landscapes.
Some
condition or weak spot had to exist previous for Safari Club
International to go in to a location, then assert a need for some
kind of conservation for reasons known or unknown. Conservation
through trophy hunting is what Safari Club International wanted. In
order for Safari Club International to function, there has to be
revenue in some form being collected off these ventures. Where is
that money going?
I
have never been a member of the Safari Club International. I thought
about it for a hot minute, but decided against it.
In
my critique of this, Why was there no dialogue stating the African
people were valued as stewards of the animals. Through the value of
the African people, which would have given them a vested interest
outside of foreign persuasion, to tend their wildlife with better
care and consideration. Where did the African human's value go?
Why
was it not articulated to the International stage that African people
are a commodity unto themselves that can stand alone to make revenue
towards prosperity? Why do those African governments not propagate
that idea and drive their industry based around the importance and
value of its people?
What
one sees on the internet is considerably different from the actual
daily life and treatment of people.
The
problem with this statement is the animal was asserted value while
the human population got the scraps. They were told to value the
animal, but not themselves?
The
animal and the human has to compete for value on the African
landscape. The animal and the human compete for value on social
media. The African is being told, “We value that animal. You should
to, but not you.”
Could
you imagine that concept comes creeping to your head while you stand
in abject poverty and corruption?
This
was illustrated when Ebola broke out in certain parts of Africa.
There was an angry outcry from Africans. They believed the world
didn't care if they died. It could have been some conspiracy to kill
off poor Africans living in slums or other places. Treatment or lack
of treatment brought about their belief on how the outside world
perceives them; valueless, worthy of death, and something to be
eradicated.
I
can't imagine anyone would want to feel this way.
Somewhere
in there, a portion of Africans are not seeing proceeds but realize
their lives are not valued as much as an animal sold for trophy
hunting, even if it looks like the money is going to an outfitter or
local government.
If
corrupt government leaders mistreat their constituents in such a way
,to render the population into disparity instead of prosperity, one
can understand when wildlife is sold off at the highest dollar, the
general public becomes resentful. They soon believe the local
wildlife is the instigator in their suffering, instead of the humans. Once thought, this is an erroneous idea. It is a possible scenario.
The
point illustrated here is: If a white rhino has a financial hunt
value of $350,00, is there one African person, that we can find, who
equals or surpasses that amount of money? How many African people
would it take to value that one rhinoceros?
This
is the root of all that evil.
The
intention is to value something above yourself. When outside elements
are re-enforcing the idea the animal has more value than the human,
while the human is living in squalor, where does this lead?
There
will possibly be poaching to kill off the animal in the hopes the
competition for support and finances will be divert to the human. The
human will see more of a desire to partake of the animals value
through poaching to satisfy personal needs. There could be detachment
from the animal's value because the evident poor treatment of the
human in comparison to the animal.
There
was also the argument of poachers and landowners killing off the
remaining wildlife, because there was no vested interest for them in
wildlife existence on their landscapes.
If
vested interest is a motive for action towards conservation, then it
is a weak one. The motive is covering up the real reality of why,
conservation is being utilized; revenue.
In
another reality, American dollars could possibly be funneled into programs
locally to help out veterans and poverty stricken people have a
better life. There is no trade-off for someone to do that. Trophy
hunting was a trade-off for Africa.
There
are people, right here in America, that are just as deserving of help
as the people in Africa. They may not look like your generic poor
person, but do you have to look the part to make someone extend a
hand?
Is
supporting foreign places more of a fashionable trend? Is it because
those extending help see them as less inclined to help themselves or
subjugated, whereas people believe Americans all have the life of
Riley? Do we not want to face the fact that our National Home is in serious trouble?
Are
people doing these charitable acts for the feeling, or being
authentically honest in helping another human being?
Priorities
need to be reassessed, and make the statement clear. All life
matters, and stop making it a superficial skin issue.
If
it is asserted human life has less value than an animal based on
recreation, sheltered under the umbrella of Wildlife Conservation,
there is going to be a problem.
Written
by: Angelia Y Larrimore
