I began thinking about this very recently, and because it relates to pro-trophy hunting NGOs, I figured this would be the best thread to place my thoughts in.
All the way back in 2019, on the online website Science where scientists can write articles for people to read, there was an article published by a group of conservationists arguing that banning trophy hunting or banning the importation of animal trophies would be bad for conservation for the "no trophy hunting, no incentive" reasoning. Those against trophy hunting took notice and wrote a rebuttal where they revealed a project run by Amy Dickman, one of the authors of the pro-hunting article, received funding from pro-hunting organizations. As a result, the people running the Science website became more strict on authors with potential conflicts of interest when they wrote opinion pieces.
Now for those who don't know, Amy Dickman is a wildlife conservationist who runs the Ruaha Carnivore Project based in Tanzania. This project exists to help local communities in the region coexist with predators. As for the funding this project has received from pro-hunting organizations, that only happened in 2013 and they contributed only 0.8% of the project's total funding. They haven't received funding from pro-hunting groups since then.
The reason I bring this up is because of human-wildlife conflict. This is something you hear about very often from the pro-hunting community and organizations and what they say is true. Human-wildlife conflict is one of the biggest threats to wildlife and it needs resolution. And yes, it's easy for foreigners to be upset over the death of a lion when they don't live with wild lions. But when you think about it, pro-hunting NGOs don't have any more business telling Africans how to live with predatory species than say, some random person in Texas somewhere. And I say that for two reasons.
1. Let's not kid ourselves, pro-hunting groups have lots of money, and while their contribution the Ruaha Carnivore Project was better than nothing, it's a pitiful contribution, especially when you consider they haven't contributed to the project since 2013. In truth, they should be financially helping the project more, not only to put their money where their mouths are on the very real issue of human-wildlife conflict but also as a way of thanking Amy Dickman for speaking in favor of trophy hunting multiple times in the past. Seriously, because she's defended the practice you'd think they'd financially help her out more for that reason alone.
2. The amount of support they gave the RCP, they would never show the same level of support, or any support, for an organization dedicated to aiding people in coexisting with predators in the United States. So while they're telling us about human-wildlife conflict in Africa, they again, should also put their money where their mouths are and help financially support projects such as the Wood River Wolf Project based in Idaho and People and Carnivores based in Montana.
In short, they use human-wildlife conflict as a way to get people on board with trophy hunting, but they don't actually do much of anything to help resolve the issues. Then again, why would they? If that issue was fully resolved, then it'd be more difficult to defend and get people on board with trophy hunting and massive lethal predator control.
I mean, what else could "plant-based" mean?