These Tuskers Have Passed On Their Genes Already

...a series of super-tusker killings has sparked a bitter international battle over trophy hunting and its controversial, sometimes counterintuitive role in conservation. Some conservationists believe the killing of these extraordinary animals should not be allowed. Others say controlled, regulated hunting can actually contribute to elephants’ long-term survival by providing jobs for local people and incentives for habitats to be preserved.

Something that always gets the bunny-huggers backs up... 

“The targeted elephants were among the largest, oldest bulls,” a group of conservationists wrote in a letter decrying their loss, which was published in the journal Science in June. They represented “one of the last gene pools for enormous ivory and the source of the largest tusks ever collected”.

These old, solitary except for younger bulls, animals are usually well past breeding prime. They've contibuted their genes, and all they have to look forward to is a slow lingering death by starvation because thet've outlived their supply of teeth. Nature isn't Disney.   

This month, the Tanzanian government will decide whether to issue more super-tusker hunting permits for the coming year. The authors urged them not to do so, and focus instead on ecotourism. “Alive, these super tuskers have great biological, economic and social value,” they wrote. “Once they are shot, their contribution ends.”

The money raised by hunting far outweighs the money raised by photography tourism, which seems just as potentially dangerous a hobby, and it also provides much needed jobs: 

...other scientists say many who oppose hunting seem to push for bans even if they harm habitats, wildlife and communities. “However distasteful many may find hunting, it can and does work as a provider of revenue for conservation and communities,” says Prof Adam Hart from the University of Gloucestershire, co-author of the book Trophy Hunting. Evidence shows that abolishing trophy hunting – and the incentives it creates for conservation – without funded alternatives can lead to greater loss of wildlife.

Protecting a valuable resource for hunting has the fringe benefit of protecting other species that share their environment.  

Amy Dickman, professor of wildlife conservation at the University of Oxford, said the argument is a microcosm of a much wider debate about the unintended harms of hunting bans. Focusing on the “scientific value” of the bulls perpetuated the idea that elephants and researchers were more important than local people, she says. “The letter follows the damaging pattern of demanding that hunting ends now, while providing no immediate alternative revenue stream,” she says. “[It] failed to even mention local communities. “People don’t care as much about unintended consequences,” she adds. “[They] assume if you just ban something, then those animals will live in harmony in that place. It’s often not the case.”

The sort of people who object to hunting are the sort who would no doubt decry 'colonialism' except when they get the chance to demand what foreign countries should do. Because it's never about the animals, really.