Science Magazine... And More Trophy Hunting - Part 2

Some of the arguments were explicitly denouncing consequentialism - by name. I think I've already made it clear where my opinion lies on that issue. An even more entertaining argument was that conservation techniques are indefensibly human centric, saying we should deploy the military against poachers with full weaponry and forcibly displace villagers in sensitive areas. You can't say they didn't come with ideas.

There were worrying critiques, though, from my perspective... critiques that amounted to "The research backing trophy hunting just isn't all there". I can't follow all the references, and I shouldn't have to, but I was at least convinced that some of the arguments in the original letter defending trophy hunting were poorly represented. I, along with many of the letter's authors, find trophy hunting repugnant. If the evidence for its efficacy aren't there, then I don't want to ride this train any longer than I have to.

That said, it's important to change your beliefs with new facts, but not overnight. There exists, right now, relationships between game reserves and rural communities that protect vulnerable species while empowering rural villagers. If you want to eradicate that relationship, the burden of proof is on you to show that another scenario can work just as well or better.

I also have my suspicions of those who pile on critiques to unpopular opinions. At least one of the critiques I read was bang on, some seemed reasonable and muddied the waters; however, at least three specific critiques were variations of off topic, logically inconsistent, or downright wrong. Wrong and emotional is a dangerous combination that throws the middle ground into doubt. Fallacious arguments are bad enough in the pub, but keep them out of the worlds most prestigious journals, please.