It’s the short term expedient behavior of politics and economics that have “always ended in human catastrophe” . Does it matter whether Siberia’s forests were raped by political commissars fufilling the “plan’s” quotas in soviet times, or today, by Japan’s market demand? If there was some exotic, introduced, mammal destroying the Russian taiga, and it required the use of hunters’ guns to eliminate them, would not the ARM oppose this?
Would not the ARM’s arrogance about “nature taking its course” destroy these forests every bit as effectively as a party apparchatik or robber baron? Yet the ARM would hide behind their inaction and let the destruction of the world’s largest forest be a sign of their “purity”. We see this in California with the ban on hunting and selling burro meat. Or now you want to go there? Are you aware the history of the domestication of the dog (wolf) is intimately tied to them as partners in hunting?It is part of being one with “man’s best friend”, our first domesticated animal. The skill of pack management, it is.
“Symbolic” hunting is not just practiced by those high class hound hunters you want to unleash your imaginary class war on. Aboriginal cultures have it too, it’s called “hunting for ceremonial purposes”. The feathers of raptors are obtained by such hunting, though not always. With the exception of the ceremonial Makah whale hunt, (hunting by “cultural necassity”), the ARM won’t speak out against Native Amnerican “trophy hunting”. Ohh no, They must patronize modern aboriginal cultures, I guess in the case of the UK ARM, this would be your modern version of the “white man’s burden”. Old style British colonialism is alive and well. The US ARM isn’t immune to our uniquely historical forms of patronising like this too. We learned well from our mother country as colonial overlords, did we not?