Cecil the lion is not alone. Hunting large animals in Africa as a sport is a common practice and serves as a source of funding for governments

"Sportive" hunting (Trophy hunting) is offered in 23 countries in Africa, only in South Africa it provides an annual income of about two hundred million dollars

About a week ago, a lion known as Cecil, the king of the Zimbabwean jungles, and an object of surveillance and scientific research, was shot in Zimbabwe. Walter Palmer, a dentist from Minnesota admitted that he was the one who shot Cecil the lion to death. Palmer claimed that he only went on the hunting trip and killed Cecil after hiring guides, and that he was sure he had all the necessary permits. he told
that to go hunting for Cecil he paid 55 thousand dollars. Yesterday the authorities in Zimbabwe reported that Cecil's brother, "Yerhiyo" was also shot by hunters, and now there will be no one to take care of Cecil's descendants that Jericho looked after.

Since man is already defined as a super predator, it is clear that he is hunting. Native hunter-gatherers hunt mainly small animals and hardly harm the natural weight, therefore their activity is accepted in most countries as legal.

In reserves and managed areas, conservationists hunt (or on their behalf) to avoid disturbing the natural balance. Poaching criminals hunt to satisfy demands in the markets, demands for animal parts to which foolish traditions ascribe medicinal properties and magical effects.

And of course there is the "sporting" hunter, a wild animal hunter by rich people who pay a fortune for the legal authority to kill wild animals to show their power, bravery and skills.
If there is any agreement regarding the other forms of hunting, then the "sporting" hunter is controversial. Is it a sport? Is it a form of entertainment? It is clear that permission is necessary to generate sources of income for countries or populations, which in many cases is directed to nature conservation. The dispute exists mainly in African countries where there is a natural environment that is not damaged (relatively) and activity to preserve the diversity of species,

"Sporting" hunter (Trophy hunting) offered by 23 countries in Africa, provides an annual income of about two hundred million dollars. Of the 23 countries, only Tanzania, Mozambique, Namibia and DRAP have supervision, control, control and transparency (relatively). In most other countries, the possibility of supervision is compromised due to instability, and the result is a wild hunter who is considered legal.

When there is no control and supervision, there is no possibility to control the number of hunted animals and there is no possibility to differentiate and separate the "legal" hunters from their criminal counterparts, moreover it is not clear where the money paid for the hunter's licenses is directed.

An example of this can be seen in the advertisement for the various possibilities of hunting trips in the Limpopo River region in the north of DRAP http://palala.co.za, from an offer for beginners who will be able to hunt medium deer in seven days at a price of about 6,000 dollars, to "experts" who will be able to Hunt almost everything at a price of about 30 thousand dollars in ten days. The website also includes pictures of the "heroes".

is it good or bad? Moral or selfish? Is it beneficial for nature conservation or harmful and causes the proliferation of wild hunters and damage to animal populations? While in England the traditional activity of fox hunting was banned, is "legal" hunting of wild animals in Africa justified?

Is there justification for breeding wild animals (Canned hunting) and especially lions ("blood lions") to allow rich perverts to fulfill their lust for murder "legally"?
(Those who have trouble reading - at least watch the video)...
The markets in the East are flooded with parts of tigers that are disappearing which brings hunters to market parts of lions as tigers and thus a deadly circle is created that leaves no chance for lions.

Many Israelis who visit reserves in Africa and especially in Tanzania should therefore know that "hunting tourism", meaning hunting trips by the rich in Tanzania together with the export of animals (mainly to private zoos), is 12% of the national income. This activity is supervised and authorized by the "Wildlife Protection Unit" under the "Wildlife Conservation Act". As a result, the Tanzanian government earns taxes and concession fees from "hunter tourism", money that, according to reports, is directed to pay wages and maintain reserves and reserved areas that make up 40% of the country's territory. Policies and regulations that allow Tanzania to continue with hunter licensing. The same goes for Namibia, DRAP and Mozambique, the southern African countries that earn about 200 million dollars from licensing/hunting tourism.

In Botswana and Zambia the approach is different: as of 2014 there is a general ban on hunting in Botswana. Those affected by the ban are the San (Bushman) people who live as hunter-gatherers without sources of income or livelihood. Also, about a thousand people who worked as guides, guides, skinners and taxidermists were affected, but that the government of Botswana is not bothered by the fear of loss since according to the forecasts, the income from tourism (hunting with a camera) will justify the ban. The long-term effect of the ban will need to be tested and monitored, as there are ecologists who fear that stopping hunting will cause an "explosion" of the elephant population that will harm protected areas.

In Zambia, a ban on hunting elephants and lions began in 2012, but the ban was lifted after two years. The main reasons for the ban were the difficulty to monitor and enforce the hunting regulations, the waste of money and the deterioration of the wildlife, but the government was not ready to give up an income that amounted to 6.5% of the GNP, so the ban was canceled and to overcome the difficulties the government copies the methods in Tanzania or DRAP and asks To initiate a sustainable "hunting industry".

As a response to the situation and because of the global concern about the vulnerable state of African wild animals, the European Union published a document "Strategic approach to the conservation of African wild animals" centered on a demand to limit the hunting of animals in Africa, and to stop harming natural areas.
‫‬‬‬
The growing pressure on African wildlife and the increase in wild poachers is causing Western countries to pressure African countries to allow hunting only under close supervision and with regular assessments that will weigh economic profit against conservation efforts. The hunter can contribute to conservation efforts by evacuating habitats and thus helping to strengthen affected populations, as well as by diverting funds to activities such as breeding projects and restoring species to the wild, diverting funding for conservation, protection and management of large areas.
In order for the hunter to contribute, laws and regulations are needed for many countries. However, their implementation is a challenge. Correct implementation of hunting regulations and laws and the integration of rural residents around reserves will benefit both nature and people.

After all the data, I will be allowed to express my opinion (which is not exclusive), permission to continue hunting will be given to natives whose economy is based on a tradition of controlled, controlled hunting, meaning that the hunter will not harm the populations of the hunted species nor the variety of species in the field. In other places I have stated that most of the areas in our world are already damaged and affected by human activity, a situation that requires the management of the natural environment, that is, the conservationists must manage what is happening in most reserves (including large African reserves), management means a continuous attempt to maintain an equilibrium as close as possible to the natural balance between The variety of species in the field.
‬‬
To this end, there is a need to populate areas with species that are diminishing and to verify this by thinning out exploding species, such thinning is the justification for hunting, if possible such hunting (thinning) should be carried out by the residents of the area with all the benefits (meat, furs, etc.) remaining in the possession of the locals. As for the "sport" of the hunter - the "sportsmen" will respect each other and hunt each other.

And again, since most areas are damaged and therefore require management, in order to realize conservation initiatives that are integrated with hunting, it is necessary to replace the emotional approach with a logical approach.

More on the subject on the science website

"commercial" hunting

super hunters

Hunting ban - the results