WildFact
›
Nature & Conservation
›
Projects, Protected areas & Issues
Can legalised-hunting help conservation?
Can legalised-hunting help conservation?
|
Can legalised-hunting help conservation?
|
With a recent newsletter by JV and few article on net This topic has become debatable in recent days. Some specialist, Conservationist and experts think If Done in right way trophy hunting can bring great conservation value, How?
Most of time its hard to collect the amount money that needed to carry on the conservation program in countries Like Africa. The tourism does not bring that amount of money and mostly don't reached to many conservation program because it is ended with being shared among many people involve in tourism. Trophy hunters alone bring million of dollars for a nation and conservation society that can sustain the all expense of conservation and thus help in bringing the better gene of new animal Read these below article for more detail http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/...servation/ http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...ucy-siegle Love to hear your mature response 
Safaris generate miliions and millions of dollars, thats not including the tourists fees for plane flights, restaurants, events etc.
Countries make big time bucks from tourism, eonomies in certain countries rely on it 100% Now heres the kicker, the money made from the tourists barely gets used for the actual conservations, it goes to politicians, employees, etc. The actual money given to the wild life reserve is minimal, the forest guards are paid nothing and the equipment they are given is close to middle age equipment compared to what is available now. Never, Never, NEVER is murder the answer. I repeat, NEVER is the answer to kill another living being that has done nothing wrong, correct. Why don't we just allow human hunting of inmates on death row than? If we chose to use our laws and morals to protect our rights, we need to use them on all living creatures, we are no better or worse. Obviously my opionion on this but I believe very strongly in it.
I agree that killing of animal cannot be part of conservation. But real problem is money.
I have question to all of our forum members and the visitors who read this topic. We know that we all love animal but in spite that how many of us has spent a decent amount in wild animal conservation, program or even in tourism? And if any how much? Even the big photographer, biologist, zoologist and other expert like (Valmik Thapper) Struggled to make money and thus they turned into hotel/resort and tourism business. I have lot of connection on facebook and I am sure you will also have but most of them are wildlife amateur photographer or enthusiasm who only want to count the likes and comment on their images and posts. Its type of war among them. I have never seen someone really truly involve in conservation effort. Even they tend to neglect any post like and information about conservation. So big question is why? I think its conservation is real tough and low paying job, no one wants to do it, only wants to talk about it and wants to keep themselves on good side. Let’s talk about John Varty (JV) and let’s put aside the debate what he is doing is wrong or right. He has made lot of expense to make tiger secure growing and spreading in tiger canyon, Now since tiger is increasing he needs more land, Do you think the money he is getting from tourism will help to acquire him more lands? Obviously No. Now consider if he has 16 tiger and 2 of them are old and not fertile to bring more cubs. So if he get $80,000 dollars for hunting each one of them, He will get $160,000 Which is certainly lot of money with in less time that can be used to acquire land and spread his tiger population. Basically sacrifice to 2 infertile tiger may bring the better future for the upcoming new generation of tiger in tiger canyon. So point is if trophy hunting done in right way may help conservation program? Though I still think it’s highly debatable and good topic to put your view. I suggest you to join and put your view 
Mmmm, interesting topic.
I think that a rushed answer will be a mistake. I am going to take my time and I will prepare a good replay. Let's see what the other posters think about this. Greetings. 
Food for thought, would you trust the authorities responsible for collecting money from the hunters? The countries with a wildlife crisis are already quite corrupt. I would not be shocked if the hunting quotas were made unsustainable to line their pockets.
I had thought one time that it would be great if we had a "nature conservation tax" so that every tax payer would be forced to donate. However, after giving this some thought, I know that once that money falls into the hands of polititions, most of whom either don't know the problems or simply don't care, where would that money go?
@sanjay
"Let’s talk about John Varty (JV) and let’s put aside the debate what he is doing is wrong or right. He has made lot of expense to make tiger secure growing and spreading in tiger canyon, Now since tiger is increasing he needs more land, Do you think the money he is getting from tourism will help to acquire him more lands? Obviously No." John Varty is not the person who collects money, he is backed by private investors. All the of the money received goes directly to them, they decide what to pay varty and if its worth it to buy more land. They care nothing of conservation since the land is privately owned, the animals are inbred and hybrids which offer no conservational purpose, people are allowed to hunt them, tran'q them or pet the cubs for the right price. If Varty cared about conservation, he would go donate all of his money and time to educating the public, doing studies and being a voice for the animals. Take a look at Packer, he speaks at schools, spends his life with Lions, contributed more ecological information than arguably any other Big cat expert in history, he doesn't do it for the money, he does it for the love of those creatures. I agree 100% that conservation is a low paying job, but thats why the people who do it are so pure in their ideals. Varty and Salmoni took the easy way out, zoo owners and circus owners use these creatures for financial gain, not conservation. I wish that countries gave huge sums of money to wild life protection and conservation, but until gov't isn't ran by huge corporations who pay big bucks to make sure their products are produced, it will not happen.
Pckts, Sometime I feel it totally useless to debate with you.
You always tend to divert the discussion in different direction. I clearly said "let’s put aside the debate what he is doing is wrong or right." And you exactly bring that debate. I am sure you will continue with more such reply if I tried to reply you. Better if you can answer point to point related to trophy hunting not about JV 
I see it with mixed feelings. On one side in the short term , the benefits from rich hunter's donation can't be denied: Huge ammounts of money and a tighter protection of demanded species. According to this, habitat expanding should be easier due to the money. I think corruption won't have such a huge negative impact, because it would be pretty dumb to take the whole hand, which is feeding you in long terms.
On the other hand, there are many moral and ethically issues, which also can't be ignored: Animal conservation should IMO go hand in hand with the local people. If people are forced to leave their homes for animal protection -in the worst case without compensation payment- it could result in turbulences and violence in the long run. Animal Conservation should go hand in hand with the local population, because money alone shouldn't be the only factor, which guarantees the survival of endangered species. Virunga national park in Congo is a good example, where the locals are invovled and benefit from the coexistence with nature. Apart from that, what message does it leaves, if saving endangered species from extinction is depending on the "bloodlust" of a few dozen people, who perhaps only have their own interest's in mind? Personally, i hate this thought, when i think about some -animal humiliating- selfies, where people pose next to a dead lion. But still, it also can't be denied, that some hunter's played also an important role in animal welfare. Jim Corbett for example, who shots perhaps hundred's (?) of tiger's, before he made the decision to fight for the survival of this species. Or the Gir lions, which survived thanks to the hunting regulation in the first progress. When i think about peoples, which rely on hunting, i also believe, that human's can adopt or share the role of an apex predator, to help in "natural selection". This, should be obviously limited to either very old, sick or badly injured animals, and the carcass should've an added value for food. It should be also limited to animals, which regurlarly are hunted by predator's. Mean's for example: Cape Buffalo yes, but elephant's no. In terms of big cat's: If you despereatley want to hunt one, do it in a honourable way in a ritual with ancient weapons, like the massai do. A little bit danger remind's some people perhaps of the meaning of life... If it happens comparable like this, it could work out perhaps. (06-21-2015, 07:22 AM)'sanjay' Wrote: Pckts, Sometime I feel it totally useless to debate with you. I answered your point and you specifically said "lets talk about Jon Varty" so I did. I went off on a tangent on him and Im sorry, but he specifically ties into the idea of this thread.
A very detailed article on this
http://africageographic.com/blog/trophy-...e-reality/ Some excerpt from the article- Over the last few months, wildlife biologists and conservationists have found themselves taking sides – for or against the trophy hunting industry. Many conservationists, such as myself, are against the trophy hunting of endangered and vulnerable species, not because of animal welfare reasons but because of the failure of this activity to fulfil its role in conservation. In the majority of the arguments put forth by conservationists in its favour, the term "trophy hunting" has often been found alongside the words "potential tool' and "if well done". However, the reality shows that in practice in some countries, it is just an activity to fuel corruption, encourage the unfair redistribution of the wealth generated, inadequate involvement of communities and the loss of healthy individuals that are still key for reproduction. We are often brainwashed about the role of trophy hunting as a conservation tool. It is presented to us as a magic bullet for conservation efforts in African countries where hunting is allowed. It is true that in some areas, conservationists work alongside hunters and some hunting clubs donate large amounts of money to NGOs. However, these initiatives that started off with good intentions are often, over time, diluted by corruption and loss of interest. "Campfire" in Zimbabwe is a prime example – what started off with good intentions and was successful in its goals for a few years, collapsed in its purpose and today is heavily subsidised by the government. 
Profit over people, so profit over wildlife no doubt. People are naive for believing that the trophy hunting is for the wildlife conservation.
For example, they can claim to go after the old exiled male lions that no longer in the production cycle, but that's not the case, most lions they killed were either prime males or young males right before the production cycle. The situation is completely unregulated, and they are pleasing their sadistic pleasure under the name of "wildlife conservation". The fact speaks more than thousand words and excuses, most animal species went into population decline from the last decade, and nothing really did help. And I guess those big game hunters can't just wait to mount more prizes in their shinny trophy room. 
Can-trophy-hunting-help-conservation-of-animals?
Answer is NO Like above said Hunters claim old unproductive old Fe/male lions but they kill Prime lions mostly. 2.In today's scenario of rapid mechanization and commercialization wild animals fall in receiving end in accidental killings by cars and trains, cattle carcass poisoning after hunting , give poisoning food after crop destruction, using electrocution fencing, poaching for fun,poaching for Chinese medicines,fall in wells etc. 3.Some wealthy European and Americans(99% are) pay some money to kill my wild animals, No respect for your people or your animals or your resources,this is not an error it is psycho,systematic,barbaric,serial killings and it is LEGAL. The thought itself is beyond disgusting. Trophy hunting must be stopped in Africa asap. Period. 
Friends,
In Africa there are more areas reserved for hunting than national parks. Photographic tourists visit well-structured areas, with hotels, good roads, nearby airports, etc. In areas where such infrastructures are precarious or almost non-existent the tourist visitation is insipid, fragile or almost non-existent. The trophy hunting is a conservation tool in these areas, since it preserves the most precious good: THE HABITAT! As a practical example, we have the Benoué complex in Cameroon: formed by the three national parks: Faro, Benoué and Bouba Ndjida are all united / connected to about 30 private hunting concessions, forming a contiguous biome with about 2 million hectares. If such concessions are interrupted / closed, these three parks will be isolated, separated. These concessions will be occupied by pastoralists / invaders and livestock, agricultural, poaching, logging, mining, exterminating the fauna and flora of these concessions, making the three parks reservation island, fragmented, reduced. A fundamental point is the "modus operandi" of these game reserves. There are a number of duties on the part of the concessionaire: inspection, fauna counting, elaboration and maintenance of roads, use of local labor, payment of taxes and etc. The WAP complex is also fed by several hunting concessions in Benin and Burkina Faso, bringing the same benefits as the Benoué Complex. Around 50% of the revenues of the Pendjari National Park comes from hunting concessions contiguous to the park. These two areas now have the largest populations of lions in West and Central Africa (the status of the lion in the CAR is totally unknown), among other iconic animals. We also have several hunting concessions that are disastrous, where the public power does not participate, does not supervise, there is no practical counterpart in terms of conservation and the community also does not participate. Most even the biggest disaster are "national parks and protected areas only on paper", whether for observation or hunting tourism. Unmanaged areas, only renamed to enable these countries to align themselves with the UN programs, WORLD BANK, ensuring the receipt of funds for their social and economic programs of "fighting poverty". Tanzania has numerous trophy hunting areas, much of it in areas adjacent to national parks, admittedly having the largest numbers of lions and elephants free wandering from Africa. However due to political disorder, corruption, fragile economy, numbers of animals decline to alarming levels. Poaching and ostentatious ivory hunting are all in the process of smashing the conservation success of this country. Amazingly it seems the lion's share is in the Selous Game Reserve and its numbers are stable for several years. The Ruawa National Park is contiguous to Rungwa Game Reserve, this two contiguous areas, where one attends observation tourism and the other the trophy hunting also has stable numbers of lions, already in Tanzania's best known national parks as: Serengeti, Tarangire, Katavi the lions are having a reduction in their numbers. Tanzania is now a strong link in animal products traffic, only in the last 10/12 years an estimated 100,000 elephants have been poached in this country. It is staggering numbers that there is no way to justify not knowing how 100,000 elephants simply disappear. In Zimbabwe there are two FENCING private areas named Bubye Valley Conservancy (374,000 hectares) and Savé Valley Conservancy (343,000 hectares). These two areas were formerly livestock farms where wild animals were eradicated, degraded land and livestock farming became economically unfeasible. The owners of these farms united and along with investors restored the old biome, reinserting the animals, aiming their exploration in the entertainment of the trophy hunting. Due to the correct handling, both areas hold impressive numbers of lions, elephants, giraffes and antelopes. Bubye Valley Conservancy holds the third largest rhinoceros population in Africa and acts as a trustee for the Zimbabwean government, as it is the country's most well-supervised and managed area, has numerous education and health programs for the neighboring community, and Participates in renowned conservation projects with WILDCRU - OXFORD. In short, an example of successful conservation project in exploring the trophy hunting activity. Due to its geographic location Savé Valley Conservancy may in future be part of the Greater Limpopo project.
The report commissioned by Humane Society International (HSI) in eight African countries - Botswana, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe - the tourism sector accounted for 2.8% to 5.1% Of gross domestic product (GDP) in the eight countries studied, the total economic contribution of trophy hunters represents a maximum of 0.03% of GDP, according to economists' estimates. Foreign hunters account for less than 0.1% of tourists in the region, accounting for only 0.78% or less of the total value spent by tourists and have a "minimal impact" on employment, generating about 0.76% or less Jobs in the tourism sector. That is, in areas whose tourist demand is high, the trophy hunting does not represent economic advantage. However, in terms of maintaining / implementing natural biomes the trophy hunting industry has an unquestionable role. Just look at the map of Africa and see the amount of wilderness still extant, whose justifiable criterion of its existence and maintenance as a formally protected area stems exclusively from the exploration of the trophy hunting.
Namibia is developing very well the two conservation projects (photographic tourism and trophy hunting), offering to their isolated communities the bonus and the burden of developing their conservation projects, are the communal areas of conservation, now around 100 units, In which each meeting the practical criteria will explore its natural biomes commercially, through economic projects that best justify its functionality. Wild animal numbers are growing exponentially, including lions. South Africa is another example of conservation success employing the trophy hunting along with the development of the breeding of wild animals. As a consequence of this success, we have the notorious canned game - clearly a by-product of success in multiplying numbers of animals and finding a regular economic use for such surplus populations. The ethical issue is important, however, it can not be an obstacle to sustainable conservation programs. "Commercially grown animals are not extinct." Kenya banned the trophy hunting in 1977, and from then on the numbers of wild animals have been reduced to about 85%. The trophy hunting itself does not result in success or failure of wildlife conservation. After the 1977 ban, no more formally protected areas were increased. It is easy to see that in the case of Kenya, the lack of private initiative / initiative has led to accommodation to protect wildlife from protected areas, relegating public areas to scarce funding and adequate public policies. With this, the Kenyan system has stagnated and in the last two decades collapsed. Tourism as a whole in Kenya has been reduced. Fifty years ago, Kenya was home to the largest tourist visit in Africa. In the vicinity of Nairobi, many Maasai lands have been leased to large agricultural groups, drought is causing a deep desertification process and poverty is rising to alarming levels. The number of wild animals in common areas (without formal conservation status) is collapsing. The number of cattle multiplied. The internationally known Kora National Park due to the conservation work of Mr. George Adamson is "functionally disabled", there is no working camp to welcome tourists in this park. Trophy hunting is neither a villain nor a solution, it is a powerful tool to be used in remote areas, primarily aimed at maintaining the natural habitat and animal sustainability, removing the problems caused by human invasion. "Every area with a formal conservation status only works with efficient management, broad political support, good community participation, a strong and effective legal system, competent marketing and, above all, a viable economic project by government, community and Private initiative, aiming at sustainable development. There should be no dogmas of conservation, it is necessary to adopt a pragmatic and holistic view making what makes sense and what works. Nothing more convincing than a message linking wildlife conservation to the socioeconomic well-being of the community / society and environmental sustainability. Lack of link between wildlife and work, wildlife and economy, wildlife and ecosystem balance, wildlife and provision of goods and services, is a major hindrance.
Unfortunately hunting is still used as an excuse for conservation, when I was in Tanzania, the three parks I went to were full of tourists, every lodge was full and animal sightings were plenty. I see no reason why they couldn't open the surrounding "hunting parks" to protected reserves and still generate the same revenue generated in the Serengeti, tarangire, ngorongoro, selous etc.
But I'm not naive to the situation, these parks generate high dollar western tourists and a profit to the entities who own them but I believe they could offer the same profits without killing animals. Especially with the growing photography movement that is occurring. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |