As mentioned by Simon, the article describes how trophy hunting can help conservation efforts in Africa. The study states that trophy hunting has received a bad name in from many different people and countries, due in part to reckless hunting resulting in species extinction. However, the study then goes on to state that hunting has facilitated the recovery of struggling species by giving ranchers incentives to reintroduce animals into environments in order to have more opportunities to hunt them. Specifically, it gives the example of the white rhinoceros who grew from a population of 50 one century ago, to 11,000 population members today.
While this example of how hunting (even trophy hunting) can aid in the conservation of species exist, much controversy remains. Tomm mentioned this controversy in a reply to my original Game Over blog post.
“…people think that paying $40,000 for a tag to go kill a rhino is going to help ‘conserve’ the population. While it does raise awareness, it’s also a bit of an irony that endangered or the ‘big five’ have to die to make a point about wildlife conservation. Wildlife conversation has never taken on that trademark of a dark side until recently.
It is also somewhat of an unfortunate instance that African countries have to rely on this type of tourism to add to their economy, and might speak to the perils of the order of the state in some of these cases that this is looked upon as a last resort rather than promoting other forms of smaller (terms of $$) tourism.”
I agree with Tomm. How is it that killing is the best way to conserve?
Per Josh, sport hunting brings in an astounding $200 million a year from tourists in Africa. This figure is a large one for many African nations, and as such, they are unwilling to stop an activity that brings in a large amount of money. In fact, the bans which I described in my earlier post (where Australia banned certain animal part importations) are being fought by Zimbabwe in an attempt to keep the money flowing.
The situation we find ourselves in is one of weighing ecological values against economical values. Which are more important? The answer most likely depends on who you ask and what situation you find them in. I for one value conservation, and at this point, it seems as though one of the only ways to find funding for conservation is through hunting and permits. This is a balance between inhumane activities and species conservation.
If this is truly the case, a search for a more humane way of funding conservation is needed. In addition, hunting permits need to be regulated. Kendall Jones attempted to defend trophy hunting as conservation by stating that “permit money goes back to local communities who use it to fund schools and water wells.” Now i’m not an expert, but that does not sound like ecological conservation to me.
Photo Cred: cbc.ca
As always: comments, questions, concerns or even random thoughts? I would love if you shared them with me so please comment below!