stakerk

Link to article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/...nya_hunting_dc

interesting issue. Sounds like, ironically, allowing sport hunting may increase numbers of animals. I enjoy hunting pheasants (love to eat them) but there is no way I could shoot any large mammal like a gazelle, or buffalo, etc.

PredatorBiologist: in particular would like to hear your opinion.

Kevin from California

nyama

Interesting what Mr. Norton-Griffiths says in this article. Each time we have this hunting debate on Fodors, it's less about what hunting can contribute to conservation but more about the ethics of trophy hunting. For conservation it's completely irrevelant what we think about the trophy hunter - what counts is the money that he generates, money which helps to protect habitats and wildlife. A good example is Kafue in Zambia where you have the best game sightings in hunting concessions outside the park than in the park itself. I don't like trophy hunting, but important for me are results for conversation, and not emotions.

nyama

conversation = conservation, sorry.

thit_cho

If its true that wildlife is better protected and increasing in countries that permit hunting, and declining in Kenya, I think the answer is obvious.

belgirl

How can wildlife be better protected and increase when you are hunting them? I think that is completely bogus. On our trip to Kenya, there wasn't once place we went to where the animal population had increased because of poachers in the past. On the contrary, the rhino population at Amboseli has been wiped out because of hunting and the cheetah and lion population on the Masai Mara is at an all time low because of hunting. I think hunting for sport or money is just plain wrong.

thit_cho

Belgirl, when, exactly, were rhinos permitted to be hunted in Amboseli? You are making the common mistake of equating poachers with hunters.

Kavey

Belgirl, licensed hunting and poaching are not the same thing at all!

Poaching is illegal hunting, uncontrolled and disastrous for wildlife.

Hunting, whilst utterly abhorrent to me personally, is controlled and the evidence does seem to show that it can, when managed properly, protect wildlife.

Areas of land that would not otherwise be given over to wildlife (because the owner either does not wish it or does not feel he/ she can make a viable living from wildlife tourism) are sometimes given over to hunting. The owner then has a strong incentive to ensure that the boundaries are protected, as are the animals within and that their populations flourish. Otherwise he would have no animals for the paying guests to hunt.

As I said, I find it utterly, completely and absolutely abhorrent to hunt for any reason other than to eat. The desire to hunt in order to prove one's skill, machismo or whatever the heck it is, leaves me bewildered.

BUT I'm not naive enough to pretend that it doesn't, on some occasions, provide a conservation route that can work.

nyama

Operators of hunting concessions are only allowed to shoot special species and only a limited number of these species ("hunting quotas&quot. Mostly these quotas include special restrictions, for instance excluding female and young members of that species. Hunters just don't walk around and shoot everything which is moving. Often they are even not allowed to shoot a second animal if they missed the first one.

Here's a good example of hunting quotas in Botswana, "Wildlife Statistics 2004", look at Chapter 6:
http://www.cso.gov.bw/html/environ/W...ublication.pdf

And here's a good study about hunting in Tanzania, "Tourist Hunting and it's role in development of Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania":
http://www.wildlife-baldus.com/downl...20PART%20I.pdf
http://www.wildlife-baldus.com/downl...0PART%20II.pdf
http://www.wildlife-baldus.com/downl...PART%20III.pdf

nyama

"As I said, I find it utterly, completely and absolutely abhorrent to hunt for any reason other than to eat."

The foreign hunter pays thousands of dollars to pull the trigger, and the local community gets the meat. Is that so bad?

divewop

Here we go again...the never ending debate about "sport hunting."

And can we stop calling it sport hunting? Where the heck is the 'sport' in all of this?!

Interesting, if hunting is such a "good" thing why have so many hunters in Africa put down their rifles and turned conservationists, and do not even come close to supporting hunting?

nyama

Yes, here we go again... emotions, emotions, emotions.

Please tell me one country in East or southern Africa where revenues from hunting are decreasing.

PredatorBiologist

Kevin: thanks for posting, even though hunting is often discussed this is an interesting case as Kenya's wildlife has spiraled in the wrong direction despite a lengthy ban on hunting. That result would seem counter intuitive and definitely lends credence to hunting as a conservation tool.

It appears that wildlife in Kenya is dwindling primarily due to two pressures -- loss of habitat and poaching. Both of those are a direct result from local people who do not have a enough reason to value maintaining wildife and its habitat over making consumptive use of it. The problem is compounded by the fact that the government seems to lack the resources to enforce their no hunting rules and not enough resources to maintain let alone expand protected habitat areas.

To establish lasting conservation it is essential to deliver economic value to the local people and educate them that the benefits they are receiving are a direct result of conserving the wildlife. Tourism is obviously one huge source of revenue but at its current distribution to the people they are still encroaching the parks, destroying habitat for farming and cattle grazing, and poaching so there needs to be more economic incentive and the government needs more revenue for better management/enforcement.

Hunting certainly can provide a very large new economic benefit that is tied directly to the conservation of species and habitat. The critical factor is hunting needs to be well managed. It is essential to monitor populations and habitat so that hunting occurs only on a sustainable basis. I would hope there would be core areas such as the National Parks that would remain completely free of hunting and thus surrounding buffer areas and the creation of entire new areas such as rehabilitated farm lands would be developed as the hunting areas. This change in the land use would be creating new habitat as well as providing a buffer that better protects the habitat within the core parks areas. This could result in the expansion of animal populations as they would gain habitat and that is the most important factor for their future conservation. This only works if a fair portion of the revenue benefits the local people and thus they have incentive to support it. In addition to money many trophy hunting operations pass the meat along to local populations, so with increased cash and food they have much less incentive to poach. Hunting should generate funds that go to protect their 'stocks' too, which means greatly enhanced anti-poaching efforts. Thus, well managed hunting could certainly be used as a conservation tool. Well managed would require good information, strict quotas, limited to certain species and only those with sustainable populations. Honestly, this is what the Division of Wildife, Fish & Game or whatever it is called in each state does. In most States in the USA the revenues from hunting are a key element to funding of enforcement, purchasing new land, research etc.

From the pragmatic view of conserving the most habitat and thus supporting the highest population numbers this is a valuable tool and many conservationists are facing that fact. In these poor communities though they have to receive tangible benefits, all the revenue cannot go to a few businesses and into government coffers.

As someone who has never and will never hunt I wish it wasn't this way. I do understand the animal rights focus on the individual animals that are sacrificed with the hunting. But working as a conservation biologist the focus is saving species diversity and populations. That requires ensuring the continuance of each species and their habitat. Sticking to an ideal of protecting each individual from hunting while thousands of others dwindle from loss of habitat (and many are hunted anyway illegally with no economic benefit) will only result in continued decreasing numbers making hunting a 'necessary evil' in my mind, at least until a new way to boost non-consumptive economics in the area is discovered/developed. It sounds a lot better when you can harvest Brazil nuts instead of Zebras.

Is there a Kenya lottery yet? It may be a tax on people who are bad at math but the Colorado Lottery provides millions of dollars to purchase new open space lands so I love it!

nyama

Thank you, PredatorBiologist.

divewop

And unfortunately, in most cases, hunting IS NOT 'well-managed.'

No one has answered my question yet as to why many ex-hunters are now conservationists and would not ever endorse hunting again.

Anyone...anyone??

stakerk

Thanks PredatorBiologist and everyone else. Great arguments on both sides. Glad I do not have to decide what they do in Kenya.

Also must commend everyone for discussing this with much less than the usual vitriol when this issue comes up.

nyama

divewop, I've met several hunters and ex-hunters, all would call themselves conservationists, and none of ex-hunters demand banning of hunting. Even Norman Carr, one of the greatest conservationists of all times, and ex-hunter too, never demanded that.

Where is hunting not well-managed? It's well managed in SA, Nam, and Botswana. I don't know the current state in Zim, but in former times it was well managed in this country too. It is also quite well managed in Tanzania, and even in many areas in Zambia.

divewop

Nyama-
I don't remember mentioning the word banning but since you seem to have all the answers and can speak for hunters, ex-hunters and conservationists, I won't get into this with you. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject.
>-

And with all due respect, I'm glad to know we have a resident hunting expert on the forum so if anyone else has any concerns about hunting they can ask you.

nyama

divewop, my first language is not English, and my vocabulary is limited. Sorry for that.

thit_cho

divewop, I think its relatively simple. Some hunters may, over time, come to find their hobby disturbing and become, as you have characterized them, "conservationists"; others don't and continue to hunt. I'm not sure why you believe you have asked such a difficult and mysterious question.

divewop

Thit cho-
I don't believe I have asked as you stated, "a difficult and mysterious question." However, I do believe and will always believe, through my experience of talking to hunters, non-hunters, ex-hunters and conservationists that any way you slice it, in the long run hunting does more harm than good for wildlife conservation.

And I have heard both sides of the story allowing those who are the devil's advocate to, indeed, tell their side of the story.

Emotions aside, none to date has convinced me hunting does any good. It is an archaic and barbaric way of "managing wildlife and/or generating income."

There are many other ways for poor countries to become more self-reliant and self-sustainable, but unfortunately, it's just easier to generate income from people wanting to shoot animals. It's a no-brainer because no leg work or thought is involved as it is in generating income from other means.

Like I've stated, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.