I think Namibia will be on the right side of history. Designing color varieties for consumable resources creates a lot of moral problems to the cause of hunting.
What benefit does line bred animal colors have to the wild species? (a tenuous one at best) Then there comes the risks of escapees of the modified races interbreeding with the wild gene pool causing potential contamination.
Regardless of color, any modification to "enhance" wild life such as breeding for larger horns, more heat tolerance or even TB resistance creates a troubling scenario: domestication. Once the animal has been considered bifurcated from the wild stock and "domesticated" by man it opens up pandoras box from a hunting ethics standpoint. Examples of battles we will lose: if you breed domestic cows are you not obligated to humanely slaughter them in a swift and painless method since they are now under the control of man and are bred for his benefit? Then why on earth should it be legal to cause "undue suffering" to a domesticated springbok that is melanistic/copper/leucystic/tan/russet by maiming it with a bow and arrow that results in a protracted death? Exactly. When you tamper with nature you then run a moral hazard towards HOW you choose to kill that animal and for what purpose. Dangerous arguments to defend with the public as lines get blurry.
Who sounds more noble?
1.) I'm the custodian of land that we are restoring to support a maximum holding capacity of native, indigenous resources. We can sustainably manage this land and it's wildlife through controlled management of excess stock on an annual basis and the revenues go to continue to preserve this wild habitat and its animals for future generations.
OR
2.) I run a game ranch where we breed unique stripes and spots on our animals to provide a competitive market advantage to people that fly over here to kill odd colored animals we make. We will continue to make more unusual colors and sizes to battle for more client interest in killing these animals. Simultaneously, these animals that have no value to the wild ecosystem are squatting on real estate that would have otherwise been used to hold native, natural wildlife but is instead being used for the concoction of chimera for the pleasure of paying customers.
Number 1 is easy to defend to a moderately anti-hunting individual or a neutral and ignorant member of the public. Number 2 is not easily defensible except under the auspices of "its a free country and its a free market, mind your own damned business".
Namibia has time and again bucked forces of anti-hunters and "commercialized" hunters in equal measure and I believe they are demonstrating very thoughtful policies for the future of sport hunting in the process.
I'll sit back and hear all the hisses and boos now.
Rookhawk, you've adopted an old lawyer's trick! Take two extremes and you will drive people to the one you like. And given those two options, I agree with you.
But I'd suggest life is rarely that simple. What if the second options was just "I run a game ranch, and I've converted lots of land from intensive agriculture and livestock rearing to wildlife. I have to manage the wildlife, both because this isn't a pristine ecosystem (what is?) and because I need to earn money to maintain this game ranch. In order to not only maintain, but to increase this project, I breed some of the animals, and I breed strong, beautiful animals, rather than weak, sorry ones.
The second option sounds a lot like South Africa today, and it's hard to argue that this model hasn't been successful - both from an animal perspective and from a hunting perspective.
Yes, there are extremes in terms of breeding odd colors, but unless someone is engaging in genetic engineering (gene splicing) - and I've not heard any allegations of that - this is no different than breeding for health, good conformation, big horns, etc. And, as Jerome has noted, who can even decide what a color variant is? Golden gemsbok, for example, and wildebeest occur naturally.
As a hunter I have very little desire to hunt color variations, at least if the price is (a great deal) higher. Having said that, I have, for example, hunted the four main springbok variations, and it gave me a goal, and was fun (coppers were cheaper in those days!).
But regardless of my own lack of desire to hunt these animals, I have no problem if someone else wants to hunt them, just as I have no issue with someone wanting to hunt big whitetail bucks on fenced land, or from food plots.
And, frankly, I don't believe that getting rid of these animals will result in anyone who is currently against hunting coming over to our side, nor will we lose very many, if any, to the other side.
