Obviously I understand the hesitation to add species like Elephants, Rhinos, Zebra’s, Giraffes, etc. But if they did I would love it if they did it in a way explaining the situation these species are in and donate a portion of the cost of the DLC to the conservation of the species that they add.
I'll expand on my question here...
I grew up in South Texas where there are countless wildlife ranches with exotic game from all over the world. It isn't uncommon to see Alpine ibex, Arabian oryx, wildebeests, and even zebras. Depending on what you're hunting for, you may spend $50.000+ per kill.
Because they're categorized as "exotic game" each animal is in open season year around (setting aside any specific breeding schedules of the ranch). While not native, many of these species have a higher population living on private ranches than existing in the wild. Of course they're raised chiefly to hunt but it doesn't change the fact these programs often foster large populations.
Although it is illegal to buy, trade, or sell for tigers, the dirty truth is they're still available. Depending on age and health, I've read tigers can be valued between $3.000-$5.000. I have no doubt a tiger hunt could fetch $50.000+ per kill, collecting a gross ~$45.000 (I understand there are many ancillary costs, so this is by no means a net amount). These margins seem huge, as does the incentive to encourage breeding practices.
So my question: Why, given the success we've seen from wildlife management ranches and sponsored hunts around the world, do we see so few predator hunts for threatened species such as tigers?
I understand there are some restrictions around predatory hunts, even for exotic animals. Why? Would this not make for a perfect marriage of capitalism and conservation?
While doing some research on grizzly bear populations in Alberta, I discovered one of the shadiest things the UCP is attempting to do which has received no media coverage.
Earlier this year, Jason Nixon announced that grizzly bear populations had recovered and he ordered a review of their threatened species status. For context, Jason Nixon is an avid hunter and alleged poacher. Grizzly bears’ threatened species status is the only thing protecting them from being hunted for sport.
The CBC ran this article including this analysis from the lead at the organization which conducted the study for the Government of Alberta, fri Research in Hinton:
> Stenhouse credits forest management and younger forests for the change. > You open up the canopy which allows more light to come in, which produces more food and berries on the ground for bears," he said.
It seems odd to credit forestry activity for recovering grizzly bear populations until you see the fri Research Board of Directors: https://friresearch.ca/content/board-directors. A majority of the Board are employees of either forestry, forestry products or oil and gas companies. This is who Jason Nixon and the UCP Government selected to conduct their grizzly bear population study, and no one in the media even reported on the massive conflict of interest.
It is clear the UCP has a plan here:
- Hire an industry-controlled “research” organization to find that grizzly bear populations have increased
- Use the findings of this questionable study to review the threatened species status of grizzly bears.
- Remove the protection of grizzly bears, benefitting both natural resources companies in their habitat range and trophy hunters.
Don’t let them succeed. This is just one example of unreported UCP corruption I found incidentally, how many others are there?
