As a total outsider who is fascinated with the idea of legalised sport hunting in India, I find Mehul and Naki's "opposing" views highly thought-provoking.

Per the issue of density of population itself being a stop to safe hunting, I can point to New Jersey, where the population density for the entire state is approximately 1000 per square mile {almost 8 million people living in just shy of 8,000 square miles.} I grew up there and hunted small game there. Hunting accidents were and are rare. I now live in Idaho, a state of approximately 10 times the size of NJ {86,000 sq miles} with a total population of about 1,5 million.

Now, heres the punchline...

I have read that every year, New Jersey hunters shoot more deer than Idaho hunters do. Population density does not necessarily mean poor hunting. The mere fact of high population density is not an insurmountable obstacle to safe and productive hunting. Hunting in densely-populated Germany is another good example. Thus, in spite of the population density {which IS a challenge to overcome}, it CAN be said that overall, the culture and laws of New Jersey provide for sustainable-yield hunting in a safe environment.

But DOES India have the political will to establish a culture and system of management that would appeal to foreign hunters or is the goal only to appeal to relatively wealthy Indian nationals? I suspect there are many people of means in the USA and Europe that would beat the door down to get a chance to hunt in India, but only a quality hunt will bring them back for more.

Summing up, I am trying my best to understand this fascinating discussion:

I think I am hearing that Mehul believes there are technical solutions {new laws, game management regulations, etc} to the problem of reintroducing hunting to India and he is optimistic that these changes can be implemented.

But Naki's response is that while the technical solutions may APPEAR to solve the problems and might be able to be implemeted, the REAL problems {cultural, bureaucratic, etc} would be/are virtually insurmountable.

Is that about right?