I know that virtually no-one ever changes their mind because of an exchange of ideas on social media, so my pursuing this isn't to suddenly try and make you a believer in the concept hunting can be good for conservation. It is to try and identify the area of disagreement (in what should be a simple evaluation) for my own satisfaction, which I confess is selfish curiousity.Airwayfreak wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:17 pm[And this is the gist of the discussion. Hunting farms breed animals for hunting, nothing else. And there is nothing wrong with that. Just like we breed sheep and cows for human consumption. It will be foolhardy to slaughter every single animal and not have anything left to continue breeding. But this is not conservation.
You have agreed that the hunting game farmers clearly have an interest in bio-diversity and promoting diverse bloodlines because that obviously leads to a sustainable supply of animals to hunt. Now that activity would clearly constitute "conservation" as defined if the animals were not to be hunted.
So it seems to me that the crux of the matter is that the only difference between your position and the position of those that claim that hunting can be considered conservation is the "intention" behind those activities. If they were not "intended" to facilitate hunting those activities would indeed constitute conservation.
This is much like the definition of, for example, murder where mens rea (or intention) is a key element that needs to be present for a particular action (given the other definitional elements are there) to be considered murder.
Currently I am satisfied that nowhere in any definition of "conservation" that I have come across is "intention" mentioned as a necessary prerequisite for a particular activity to be considered conservation, but that doesn't mean that that doesn't exist. It might just mean that I haven't come across it.
Thanks for the debate. It has been largely civilized. My curiousity is satisfied now.