Datasets:

faridariai

/

farid-squad

like 0

Context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management. Question: Where is there a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game? Answer: Trinidad and Tobago

Context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management. Question: What is there a very lucrative and thriving black market for? Answer: poached wild game

Context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management. Question: What is hunting pressure from? Answer: high

Context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management. Question: What very active tradition Trinidad and Tabago have? Answer: hunting of small to medium-sized wild game

Context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management. Question: What animal aids in the hunting? Answer: hounds

Context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management. Question: What population has extirpated? Answer: red brocket deer

Context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management. Question: What do hunters pay to obtain hunting license? Answer: very small fees

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: What does hunting give resource managers an important tool? Answer: managing populations

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: What is carrying capacity in most circumstances determined by? Answer: combination habitat and food availability,

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: What do some environmentalists assert reintroducing predators would achieve? Answer: same end

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: How is hunting an important tool for resource managers? Answer: managing populations

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: What happens if a population exceeds the carrying capacity of their habitat? Answer: threaten the well-being of other species

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: How can hunting actually increase the population of predators? Answer: by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: What do some hunting advocates assert that is indirectly reduced among animals when intraspecific competition has been reduced? Answer: mortality

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: What would environmentalists have done, instead of hunting? Answer: (re)introducing predators

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: What is an important tool in managing populations? Answer: Hunting

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: What is carrying capacity determined by? Answer: combination habitat and food availability

Context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. Question: What can it increase the population of? Answer: predators

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What did sport hunters in the 19th century purse game for? Answer: trophy

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What was the head of an animal displayed as? Answer: sign of prowess

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What happened to the rest of the animal? Answer: s typically discarded

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What did some churches disapprove of? Answer: such waste

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What countries frowned upon this hunting? Answer: Nordic

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What was the only goal for many European sport hunters in the 19th century? Answer: a trophy

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What types of trophies would hunters keep as trophies to be displayed as a sign of their prowess? Answer: the head or pelt of an animal

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: In what countries was the hunting for trophies frowned upon, back in the day and in modern times? Answer: Nordic

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What was hunting in North American in the 19th century used to supplement? Answer: food supplies

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What destinations did sport hunting see elaborate travel to in the pursuit of trophies? Answer: Africa, India and other places

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What century was game hunted as a trophy? Answer: 19th

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What countries is trophy hunting frowned upon? Answer: Nordic

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What did North America primarily hunt for? Answer: food supplies

Context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed] Question: What sport of hunting is in Africa? Answer: safari method

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: What Continent did the biological Conservation state trophy hunting is of major importance to the conservation of? Answer: Africa

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: What does hunting create economic incentives for? Answer: conservation

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: What did another study show that less than 3% of reached the local level? Answer: expenditures

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: What type of studies does the Biological Conservation journal publish? Answer: scientific

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: Why is trophy hunting important to conservation in Africa? Answer: creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: Trophy hunting can include areas which would likely be unsuitable for what other types of ecotourism? Answer: photographic

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: How much of a trophy hunters' expenditures actually reach the local level, according to another study? Answer: less than 3%

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: What thus is the level of economic incentive and benefit? Answer: minimal

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: What is of major importance in Africa? Answer: trophy hunting

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: What does trophy hunting create in Africa? Answer: economic incentives for conservation

Context: A scientific study in the journal, Biological Conservation, states that trophy hunting is of "major importance to conservation in Africa by creating economic incentives for conservation over vast areas, including areas which may be unsuitable for alternative wildlife-based land uses such as photographic ecotourism." However, another study states that less than 3% of a trophy hunters' expenditures reach the local level, meaning that the economic incentive and benefit is "minimal, particularly when we consider the vast areas of land that hunting concessions occupy." Question: How much of trophy hunters expenditures actually reach the local level? Answer: less than 3%

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: What do a variety of industries benefit from? Answer: hunting

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: Where is it estimated that a hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist? Answer: Tanzania

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: Where does the average safari hunter stay in? Answer: tented camps

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: Advocates argue these hunters allow for what type of activities? Answer: anti-poaching

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: What do a variety of industries obtain benefit from? Answer: hunting

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: In what country is it estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times what an average ecotourist does? Answer: Tanzania

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: What type of accommodations does the average photographer touring Tanzania seek? Answer: luxury

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: Where does the typical safari hunter hang his hat at night? Answer: in tented camps

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: Where can safari hunters go which are uninviting to the less hardcore ecotourist? Answer: remote areas

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: How much does a safari hunter spend compared to an average ecotourist? Answer: fifty to one hundred times

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: What does the photo tourist seek? Answer: luxury accommodation

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: Where does a safari hunter usually stay? Answer: tented camps

Context: A variety of industries benefit from hunting and support hunting on economic grounds. In Tanzania, it is estimated that a safari hunter spends fifty to one hundred times that of the average ecotourist. While the average photo tourist may seek luxury accommodation, the average safari hunter generally stays in tented camps. Safari hunters are also more likely to use remote areas, uninviting to the typical ecotourist. Advocates argue that these hunters allow for anti-poaching activities and revenue for local communities.[citation needed] Question: What hunters allow for anti-poaching activities? Answer: Safari hunters

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: Hunting has significant financial impact in what country? Answer: the United States

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: What do many companies specialize in apropos to hunting? Answer: equipment or speciality tourism

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: "There's an app for that!", what have been different technologies been created to do? Answer: assist hunters

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: What broad range of backgrounds do today's hunters come from? Answer: economic, social, and cultural

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: How much money did the thirteen million hunters spend on their sport in 2001? Answer: over $20.5 billion

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: What type of financial impact does hunting have on the U.S.? Answer: significant financial impact

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: What has been developed in the U.S. to help hunters? Answer: different technologies

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: One technology that is available for hunters in the U.S. is? Answer: iPhone applications

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: How much did hunters spend in 2001? Answer: over $20.5 billion

Context: Hunting also has a significant financial impact in the United States, with many companies specialising in hunting equipment or speciality tourism. Many different technologies have been created to assist hunters, even including iPhone applications. Today's hunters come from a broad range of economic, social, and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport.[citation needed] In the US, proceeds from hunting licenses contribute to state game management programs, including preservation of wildlife habitat. Question: What do the proceeds from hunting assist with? Answer: preservation of wildlife habitat

Context: However, excessive hunting and poachers have also contributed heavily to the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals, such as the quagga, the great auk, Steller's sea cow, the thylacine, the bluebuck, the Arabian oryx, the Caspian and Javan tigers, the markhor, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the bison, the North American cougar, the Altai argali sheep, the Asian elephant and many more, primarily for commercial sale or sport. All these animals have been hunted to endangerment or extinction. Question: What has excessive hunting contributed heavily to? Answer: the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals

Context: However, excessive hunting and poachers have also contributed heavily to the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals, such as the quagga, the great auk, Steller's sea cow, the thylacine, the bluebuck, the Arabian oryx, the Caspian and Javan tigers, the markhor, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the bison, the North American cougar, the Altai argali sheep, the Asian elephant and many more, primarily for commercial sale or sport. All these animals have been hunted to endangerment or extinction. Question: What do Steller's sea cow, the bluebuck, and the Javan tigers all have in common? Answer: extinction

Context: However, excessive hunting and poachers have also contributed heavily to the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals, such as the quagga, the great auk, Steller's sea cow, the thylacine, the bluebuck, the Arabian oryx, the Caspian and Javan tigers, the markhor, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the bison, the North American cougar, the Altai argali sheep, the Asian elephant and many more, primarily for commercial sale or sport. All these animals have been hunted to endangerment or extinction. Question: Why have poachers killed endangered animals? Answer: primarily for commercial sale or sport.

Context: However, excessive hunting and poachers have also contributed heavily to the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals, such as the quagga, the great auk, Steller's sea cow, the thylacine, the bluebuck, the Arabian oryx, the Caspian and Javan tigers, the markhor, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the bison, the North American cougar, the Altai argali sheep, the Asian elephant and many more, primarily for commercial sale or sport. All these animals have been hunted to endangerment or extinction. Question: How have the North American cougar and Asian elephant been hunted? Answer: to endangerment or extinction

Context: However, excessive hunting and poachers have also contributed heavily to the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals, such as the quagga, the great auk, Steller's sea cow, the thylacine, the bluebuck, the Arabian oryx, the Caspian and Javan tigers, the markhor, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the bison, the North American cougar, the Altai argali sheep, the Asian elephant and many more, primarily for commercial sale or sport. All these animals have been hunted to endangerment or extinction. Question: How is excessive hunting related to the extinction of species? Answer: contributed heavily

Context: However, excessive hunting and poachers have also contributed heavily to the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals, such as the quagga, the great auk, Steller's sea cow, the thylacine, the bluebuck, the Arabian oryx, the Caspian and Javan tigers, the markhor, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the bison, the North American cougar, the Altai argali sheep, the Asian elephant and many more, primarily for commercial sale or sport. All these animals have been hunted to endangerment or extinction. Question: What contributes to endangerment? Answer: excessive hunting

Context: However, excessive hunting and poachers have also contributed heavily to the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals, such as the quagga, the great auk, Steller's sea cow, the thylacine, the bluebuck, the Arabian oryx, the Caspian and Javan tigers, the markhor, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the bison, the North American cougar, the Altai argali sheep, the Asian elephant and many more, primarily for commercial sale or sport. All these animals have been hunted to endangerment or extinction. Question: What have poachers contributed to hunting? Answer: endangerment

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: Who signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act? Answer: President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: When did Roosevelt sign the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act? Answer: 16 March 1934

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: What does the Act require all hunters over the age of sixteen to do? Answer: an annual stamp purchase

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: What do 98% of all the funds generated by the stamp sales go to? Answer: the purchase or lease of wetland habitat

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: How much of the nation's endangered species is it estimated benefits from the protection afford by the Duck Stamp funds? Answer: one third

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: What act was signed in 1934? Answer: Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: What President signed this act? Answer: Franklin D. Roosevelt

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: What is the requirement of the act? Answer: annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: What do the stamps depict? Answer: wildlife artwork

Context: On 16 March 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which requires an annual stamp purchase by all hunters over the age of sixteen. The stamps are created on behalf of the program by the US Postal Service and depict wildlife artwork chosen through an annual contest. They play an important role in habitat conservation because ninety-eight percent of all funds generated by their sale go directly toward the purchase or lease of wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.[citation needed] In addition to waterfowl, it is estimated that one third of the nation's endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp funds.[citation needed] Question: What percentage of the endangered species seek food and shelter in areas protected using Duck Stamp Funds. Answer: one third

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: How much money has the sale of Federal Duck Stamps generated since 1934? Answer: $670 million

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: How many acres has the sale of Federal Duck Stamps helped to purchase or lease since 1934? Answer: 5,200,000 acres

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: What do the stamps give the purchaser a license to do? Answer: hunt migratory birds

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: Who accounts for eighty-seven percent of the sale of duck stamps? Answer: hunters

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: Who manages the distribution of the funds obtained by the sale of the stamps? Answer: Migratory Bird Conservation Commission

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: How much money has been generated due to the Duck Stamp act? Answer: $670 million

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: How much land has the Duck Stamp Act help purchase? Answer: 5,200,000 acres

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: What do the Duck Stamps serve as? Answer: license to hunt migratory birds

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: What percent of sales are contributed by hunters? Answer: eighty-seven

Context: Since 1934, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has generated $670 million, and helped to purchase or lease 5,200,000 acres (8,100 sq mi; 21,000 km2) of habitat. The stamps serve as a license to hunt migratory birds, an entrance pass for all National Wildlife Refuge areas, and are also considered collectors items often purchased for aesthetic reasons outside of the hunting and birding communities. Although non-hunters buy a significant number of Duck Stamps, eighty-seven percent of their sales are contributed by hunters, which is logical, as hunters are required to purchase them. Distribution of funds is managed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Question: Who manages distribution of funds? Answer: Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC)

Context: The Arabian oryx, a species of large antelope, once inhabited much of the desert areas of the Middle East. However, the species' striking appearance made it (along with the closely related scimitar-horned oryx and addax) a popular quarry for sport hunters, especially foreign executives of oil companies working in the region.[citation needed] The use of automobiles and high-powered rifles destroyed their only advantage: speed, and they became extinct in the wild exclusively due to sport hunting in 1972. The scimitar-horned oryx followed suit, while the addax became critically endangered. However, the Arabian oryx has now made a comeback and been upgraded from “extinct in the wild” to “vulnerable” due to conservation efforts like captive breeding Question: What large species of antelope once made its home in the desert areas of the Middle East? Answer: The Arabian oryx

Context: The Arabian oryx, a species of large antelope, once inhabited much of the desert areas of the Middle East. However, the species' striking appearance made it (along with the closely related scimitar-horned oryx and addax) a popular quarry for sport hunters, especially foreign executives of oil companies working in the region.[citation needed] The use of automobiles and high-powered rifles destroyed their only advantage: speed, and they became extinct in the wild exclusively due to sport hunting in 1972. The scimitar-horned oryx followed suit, while the addax became critically endangered. However, the Arabian oryx has now made a comeback and been upgraded from “extinct in the wild” to “vulnerable” due to conservation efforts like captive breeding Question: Why did sport hunters find the Arabian oryx to be a worthwhile quarry to hunt? Answer: the species' striking appearance

Context: The Arabian oryx, a species of large antelope, once inhabited much of the desert areas of the Middle East. However, the species' striking appearance made it (along with the closely related scimitar-horned oryx and addax) a popular quarry for sport hunters, especially foreign executives of oil companies working in the region.[citation needed] The use of automobiles and high-powered rifles destroyed their only advantage: speed, and they became extinct in the wild exclusively due to sport hunting in 1972. The scimitar-horned oryx followed suit, while the addax became critically endangered. However, the Arabian oryx has now made a comeback and been upgraded from “extinct in the wild” to “vulnerable” due to conservation efforts like captive breeding Question: When did the Arabian oryx become extinct in the wild due to sport hunting? Answer: 1972

Context: The Arabian oryx, a species of large antelope, once inhabited much of the desert areas of the Middle East. However, the species' striking appearance made it (along with the closely related scimitar-horned oryx and addax) a popular quarry for sport hunters, especially foreign executives of oil companies working in the region.[citation needed] The use of automobiles and high-powered rifles destroyed their only advantage: speed, and they became extinct in the wild exclusively due to sport hunting in 1972. The scimitar-horned oryx followed suit, while the addax became critically endangered. However, the Arabian oryx has now made a comeback and been upgraded from “extinct in the wild” to “vulnerable” due to conservation efforts like captive breeding Question: How did hunters obliterate the advantage bestowed upon the oryx by evolution? Answer: use of automobiles and high-powered rifles

Context: The Arabian oryx, a species of large antelope, once inhabited much of the desert areas of the Middle East. However, the species' striking appearance made it (along with the closely related scimitar-horned oryx and addax) a popular quarry for sport hunters, especially foreign executives of oil companies working in the region.[citation needed] The use of automobiles and high-powered rifles destroyed their only advantage: speed, and they became extinct in the wild exclusively due to sport hunting in 1972. The scimitar-horned oryx followed suit, while the addax became critically endangered. However, the Arabian oryx has now made a comeback and been upgraded from “extinct in the wild” to “vulnerable” due to conservation efforts like captive breeding Question: What animal has made a miraculous comeback and been upgraded from "extinct in the wild" to "vulnerable"? Answer: Arabian oryx

Context: The Arabian oryx, a species of large antelope, once inhabited much of the desert areas of the Middle East. However, the species' striking appearance made it (along with the closely related scimitar-horned oryx and addax) a popular quarry for sport hunters, especially foreign executives of oil companies working in the region.[citation needed] The use of automobiles and high-powered rifles destroyed their only advantage: speed, and they became extinct in the wild exclusively due to sport hunting in 1972. The scimitar-horned oryx followed suit, while the addax became critically endangered. However, the Arabian oryx has now made a comeback and been upgraded from “extinct in the wild” to “vulnerable” due to conservation efforts like captive breeding Question: What is a species of large antelope? Answer: Arabian oryx

Context: The Arabian oryx, a species of large antelope, once inhabited much of the desert areas of the Middle East. However, the species' striking appearance made it (along with the closely related scimitar-horned oryx and addax) a popular quarry for sport hunters, especially foreign executives of oil companies working in the region.[citation needed] The use of automobiles and high-powered rifles destroyed their only advantage: speed, and they became extinct in the wild exclusively due to sport hunting in 1972. The scimitar-horned oryx followed suit, while the addax became critically endangered. However, the Arabian oryx has now made a comeback and been upgraded from “extinct in the wild” to “vulnerable” due to conservation efforts like captive breeding Question: What did the large antelope species once inhabit? Answer: much of the desert areas of the Middle East