Nice theory but there are a lot of people in Africa without a lot of money who are looking for things to eat. No safaris etc. means no justification for some of

Nice theory but there are a lot of people in Africa without a lot of money who are looking for things to eat. No safaris etc. means no justification for some of these pristine parks, least of all for enforcement. Witness the scores of elephant poisonings in Zimbabwe for poaching purposes. If you view people as contradictory to Nature, your efforts on the largest of continents will come to naught. It's so easy to argue for ideological purity when it doesn't directly affect you or your family (abstract you, for all I know you may live down the road from Kruger). Ultimately though there has to be an incentive for the people affected to part with the resources and opportunity offered by the big animals. Safaris are one (not terribly effective) compromise that at least justifies economically why big animals need to be preserved (no animals means no safaris means a lot less rich visitors).