There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
The information that comes to us is vital to building a thought on any subject. With regard to hunting trophy there are two road models: one with single traffic and one with forked traffic - both lead to the same place. Inside of bifurcated traffic there are two streams of thought, one notoriously linked to animal rights and welfare and the other linked to those who have "skin in the game". In the construction of the points of view, when we started "conservation studies" with Internet searches, we are always faced first with the Westernized and directed visions of the entities that are little focused on the earth, , or good projects that are aimed at the conservation of certain species in huge areas with good tourist visitation. The vast majority of NGO's that focus on wildlife rescue do not buy a hectare of land or any animal for conservation purposes, surviving from philanthropic donations. There is no point that wildlife is, in itself, self-sustaining. No animal rights NGO wants to be connected to sustainable practices. For example, the management of pastures and landscapes in which the slaughter of some species is necessary, since its funding will be directed to another NGO that does not advocate such practices. They are connected to the currents of social media opinions. When I see ivory and horns being burned in marketing events, whose message remains the same for the last 30 years: "We do not tolerate hunting and we will fight this crime to the end" is a sign that many elements feed on the permanence of this situation . The issue of funding the hundreds of NGO's (their mantras against the consumptive use of wildlife and their aggressive marketing in social networks) is rendering a dubious service to wildlife conservation, especially when it relies on doubtful opinions. If you want to train a more realistic view, search for articles by conservation practitioners, those who step on the ground, develop projects, invest time, money and dreams, and have lodges, camps, or work directly in national parks and protected areas public or private areas). From this knowledge, you can actually make your choices of what works and what does not, what it serves, and what it does not do for management and conservation of species and habitats. Beware of arguments that condemn the trophy hunting but do not propose any other solid economic model of wildlife use.
In a BLOG, I answered in this way to the questions that the trophy hunting does not serve the conservation, it can be useful to you.
Analyzing the impact of trophy hunting in Africa from the point of view of animal welfare is counter-productive. The narrow and distorted visions of this conservation tool that allows the maintenance of habitat and wildlife on thousands of hectares results lack of knowledge of the facts. Everything is a matter of funding (who will pay and how will you pay for the conservation of those millions of hectares that are outside of national parks / protected areas). The day these visions discover how to replace the funding of this activity with another "ethically appropriately" the Columbus egg will appear. For now... This group that made the article should know how to replace trophy hunting with another conservation economics project (NGO's, philanthropy and all other means of financing that are far from the reality of African communities is doomed to failure). For African communities trophy hunting is not a problem. The absence of money and other benefits is what they are. Westernized views that rely on issues of ethics and well-being do a great disservice to the yearnings of those who have "skin in the game."
Ethics and animal welfare are praiseworthy and deserve an appropriate place in welfare policies. Connecting them or using them to promote conservation policies (whether public or private) would further reduce funding capacity. Imposing the moral issue on practical conservation measures for species and ecosystems is not the best path to sustainability. The land issue is very complex, and regardless of the geographical location of any community adjacent to protected areas, the interest is only one: to have income and access to goods and services that promote qualitative improvements in life.
Even famous NGO's like African Parks are underfunded in their projects. Each protected area needs a variable value ($$$) for each km² of area to be effectively conserved. Kruger has a cumulative deficit of somewhere around $ 100 million, all in spite of more than two million annual visitors and fees received from dozens of adjacent private reserves. I know it is not pleasant to see smiling people carrying rifles beside a dead animal, but as long as the money does not show up and effective public policies are not implemented by local governments that currently do not have any conservation priority, these regulated hunters provide a continuous income and useful for the maintenance of wilderness areas, especially those that are far from the infrastructure needed for large-scale tourist visitation. Bad with them, much worse without them. The goal of conservation is to save populations rather than individuals.
For reading, I present these four links. There are many more sources of information, including association hunting and hunting, and I did not need much time to find them, follow their instinct and just stop when you're sure you have elements to form a solid opinion.
RhinoAlive.com is an awareness campaign in support of legal trade in rhino horn. It is salutary to see that conservationists globally recognized for their work on earth, are together in search of a viable and responsible solution for the survival of the rhinos.
There is a some misunderstanding about what I meant.
My reference was to thread #28, though that articles clearly shows by increasing the visiting fee of the photogenic tourist, Reserve generated better revenue but there are articles in all fields where data is manipulated to disguise people and in the same way, people can come up with articles that may show trophy hunting helps animal population revive or thrive.
Another point to all readers - please also share the alternate solutions to generate revenue.
From reading all the feedbacks it is clear trophy hunting is not the solution but what are the counter solutions else trophy hunting will keep thriving if there ain't any other solutions.
Can legalised-hunting help conservation?
