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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Can trophy hunting help conservation of animals ?

United States Haymaker Offline
Banned
#16

(03-20-2017, 09:14 PM)Pckts Wrote: 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.


I hate this trophy hunting stuff, because its the trophy hunters that originally killed off all the big lions right.  So that then wipes out the gene pool of large cats, so it decreases the size over all, and I would think that would be the same for the tiger, these cats must of been larger years ago before the hunters wiped them out.
1 user Likes Haymaker's post
Reply

India sanjay Offline
Wildanimal Enthusiast
*****
#17

Trophy hunting is very sensitive matter to discuss, Recently An African Elephant fall into Victim of this in Timbavati.


According to Trophy Hunters, They are producing necessary money to protect the remaining healthy species of animals by killing Old animals. They bring lot of money which tourism and local conservation program can never bring to the state, this money can be used to protect rest of species from poachers who kills animal brutally.
To an extent this excuse can be justified but In reality, Trophy hunters motive is not this. The elephant they killed recently in Timbavati was a young bull and they took the permission of it from government by producing false report. Their mission is to make big money by killing any animal which their big fat customer demands. They do not promote or participate in conservation programs.
So in my opinion this should be illegal and African countries shouls stop it
3 users Like sanjay's post
Reply

United States Ba Ba Lou Offline
Banned
#18

trophy hunters and poachers both need to be hunted and killed in like manner that they kill animals.
1 user Likes Ba Ba Lou's post
Reply

India Rishi Offline
Regular Member
***
#19
( This post was last modified: 03-23-2017, 10:58 AM by Rishi )

Let's talk about tigers & elephants (Wilc buffalo or rhino wont pose this challenge, they dont migrate & need little space)...Indian wildlife dept. is already struggling with funds!!!..

A lot of it actually goes to reimbursement of cattle kill...& rest of it to provide training/equipments to personnel for patrolling of new forest area they are reclaiming back.

New buffers are being designated & as the numbers increase, this issue will recochet out of control... Especially in the corridors where the animals survive the journey primarily by CATTLELIFTING!!!
The NTCA provides money for such in Tiger reserve areas but the tiger are moving out to occupy community managed & unprotected forests.
That will require several times larger funds!!!

Now, that will lead to conflict with th forest-dependent-communities...unless there are workshops & awareness drives & reaction/traquilising teams & fencing of the settlements & funds to provide them with stall-fed cattle, solar/LPV cookers to reduce their forest dependency & monitoring of speed along railways/highways throughout designated corridors.
Then there will be the upsurge in Man-eating, as they move to more human dominated forests...

Scope for ecotourism is pretty limited (Already those are monopolised by capitalists, local beniftt very little)..Maybe Betla, NorthBengal parks will show promise, BUT WHAT OF THE OTHER 90% AREA??!!!
Where will funding to manage those come from..??? 

No govt. spends the same amount it does to protect borders, on protecting what's within those borders!!!!!!!


After Indian tiger population crosses 5000, i guess we will have to consider entertaining the options  of sustainable hunting!!!!
The ousted & the old... the past-prime ones that won't live much longer & die a slow, painful death soon anyway...but before that might turn maneater or resort to full-on cattelifting & jeopardise the conservation efforts!!!
(Not the maneaters...Too much is at stake in those cases & also doing so might show tendency to declare more Maneaters for shooting..under political pressure)
In the wild, expect the unexpected, as we humans haven't really much clue of what to expect.
1 user Likes Rishi's post
Reply

India Rishi Offline
Regular Member
***
#20
Tongue 

Ok.. ignore whatever i just said in my previous post!!!! ^^

I did some research..Turns out a lion hunt in Africa costs less than ₹50lakh.
NTCA annual budget is about ₹50 Crores, that means we'll have to permit 100 tiger hunts a year to barely double the funds, at comparable costs!!!

Now India govt. alotted ₹2800 Crores for Ganga-Yamuna pollution reduction!!!!!!!!!!! That mean A PETITION LETTER can achieve more than what a hundred tiger's life would!!!..

Also, the top ten Tiger Reserves average arround 150000 tourist each year (http://www.livemint.com/Politics/nyaRXo8...ml)...& the industry is growing at a rate of 15% per year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(http://www.conservationindia.org/article...evelations)

Also this...

*This image is copyright of its original author
In the wild, expect the unexpected, as we humans haven't really much clue of what to expect.
2 users Like Rishi's post
Reply

India Rishi Offline
Regular Member
***
#21
( This post was last modified: 05-16-2017, 06:04 PM by Rishi )

Can trophy hunting ever be a useful tool in the conservationist’s toolbox? 

On the surface, the answer would appear obvious. It seems as if the killing of an animal – especially an endangered one – for sport is directly contradictory to the goal of ensuring the survival of a species.
And the answer, as usual, is more complicated.

By one estimate, African sport hunting generates approximately $200 million annually!!!

A 2000 report from TRAFFIC, an organization that works with the WWF, IUCN, and CITES to track the international trade of wildlife, describes how Namibia alone was the site of almost 15,000 trophy hunts each year. Those 15,000 animals represent a wide variety of species – birds, reptiles, mammals, and even primates – both endangered and not.
) The hunters brought eleven million US dollars with them to spend in the Namibian economy. And that doesn’t include revenue from non-trophy recreational hunting activities, which are limited to four species classified as of “least concern” by the IUCN: Greater Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok and Warthog.

So shouldn't Legal hunting conserve the hell out of lions??..
The issues here are complex and highly politicized. There are several questions that science can’t help address, primary of which is whether or not the money raised from the sale of hunting permits is used for conservation, something often promised by hunting tour operators. But empirical research can help to elucidate several other questions, such as whether hunting can ever help drive conservation efforts.

On one hand, conservation groups claim the revenues earned by the sport hunting industry are wasted and go directly into politicians’ pockets.  On the other hand, pro-sport hunting groups claim that their expenditures directly fund conservation and promote the livelihood of
the species they are killing. 
Both sides cite studies and statistics to prove their claims, and it is difficult as a third unbiased party to determine which arguments hold the most weight.

In 2006, researcher Peter A. Lindsey of Kenya’s Mpala Research Centre and colleagues interviewed 150 people who either had already hunted in Africa, or who planned to do so within the following three years. Their findings were published in the journal Animal Conservation. A majority of hunters – eighty-six percent! – told the researchers they preferred hunting in an area where they knew that a portion of the proceeds went back into local communities. Nearly half of the hunters they interviewed also indicated that they’d be willing to pay an equivalent price for a poorer trophy if it was a problem animal that would have had to be killed anyway.
Lindsey’s team also discovered that hunters were more sensitive to conservation concerns than was perhaps expected. For example, they were less willing to hunt in areas where wild dogs or cheetahs are illegally shot, in countries that intentionally surpass their quotas, or with operators who practice “put-and-take hunting,” which is where trophy animals are released onto a fenced-in property just before a hunt.

745 rhinos were killed due to illegal poaching in 2012 in Africa, which amounts to approximately two rhinos each day, mostly for their horns. The five non-breeding rhinos that Namibia allows to be hunted each year seem paltry in comparison, especially since they are older males who can no longer contribute to population growth.

Also, In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” 



BUT.........
It's important to note, however, the detrimental consequences on the youngsters on loss of the older elephants means leaving male or female youngsters without guidance - which can actually lead to so-called teenage delinquents who are more likely to have negative interactions with humans, and therefore be killed.


Hunters say trophy hunting help animals. Let's check the stats.
  • Big game hunters say they help support local communities and conservation efforts by paying for big game hunts. However, while hunters pay roughly $200 million each year for big game hunts in Africa, only around 3 percent of those funds go to local communities, and the amount dedicated to conservation efforts is nearly negligible. The overwhelming majority of hunting fees ends up lining the pockets of middlemen, large companies and local governments.
  • Big game hunters argue that killing can help a species by removing older animals from the population, or say that they trust governments to set sustainable hunting quotas. Unfortunately, in practice these arguments don't hold up. For one, some governments are more interested in how much a dead lion can bring them than in establishing sustainable hunting limits. For example, there are around 20,000 to 35,000 wild lions left in Africa, depending on whom you ask, and big game hunters legally kill around 600 each year. That's an annual population loss of 2 to 3 percentwhich is entirely unsustainable, even if you don't add in the deaths due to poaching & livestock protection.
  • And while nature likes to pick off the weakest members of a population, big game hunters target the largest, strongest members of a population. For lions, that means the male pride leader; for elephants, the oldest elephant with the biggest tusks. Killing these animals, who play a crucial role in their societies, puts the rest of their families at risk.
    Needless to say the damage done to natural selection & the genepool is far, far higher.

In the wild, expect the unexpected, as we humans haven't really much clue of what to expect.
2 users Like Rishi's post
Reply

United States brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
*****
Moderators
#22

The two big excuses: animal population control and money provided by sport hunters for the use of conservation. 
Nature left unchecked provides its own population control. In nature's way, the biggest, strongest, healthiest animals are seldom the ones that perish. 
I would hate to think that myself and my family would be targets in an annual open season by sport hunters for the benefit of humanity. 
Any way I look at it, sport hunting is barbaric.
 ~ ~ Grizzly - Ursus arctos - Brown Bear ~ ~         
3 users Like brotherbear's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB