World News

The Times January 04, 2007

Big game trophy hunters 'help to save rare species'
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

Benefits outweigh the cost in animals
Sportsmen pay thousands for kills

The slaughter of thousands of animals in Africa by big game hunters is supported by conservationists who maintain that the sport protects wildlife.

Lions, leopards, elephants and crocodiles are among the trophy species being shot by hunters from Europe and the US. Even the critically endangered black rhino finds itself in the crosshairs.

However, a study concludes, the overall toll on big game is more than matched by the benefits.

Hunters are prepared to pay thousands of pounds for the chance to shoot trophy species. The money they bring in to the 23 African nations that permit trophy hunting provides jobs and encourages people to preserve the landscape rather than turn it into farmland. According to a report in New Scientist, a proportion of the money reaches conservation organisations, who use it to promote wildlife and protect the natural habitat.

The study, published in the journal Biological Conservation, concludes that where game areas are well managed, the death toll from hunters is outweighed by increases in animal populations made possible by conservation initiatives.

Hunting money was directly responsible for the recovery of at least three rare species in South Africa — the bontebok, Damaliscus dorcas, black wildebeest, Connochaetes gnu, and Cape mountain zebra, Equus zebra — and assisted the recovery of southern white rhino numbers.

“Trophy hunting can also play an important role in the rehabilitation of wildlife areas by permitting income generation from wildlife without jeopardising population growth of trophy species,” the study adds.

“Financial incentives from trophy hunting effectively more than double the land area that is used for wildlife conservation.”

The money generated by trophy hunting is seen as particularly important in areas that are unable to attract tourists. Simultaneously, the presence of trophy hunters encourages local people to put in place anti-poaching measures.

The study, by a team of scientists from Orleans University, France, and the University of Zimbabwe, Harare, estimates that at least 540,000 square miles of land in Africa are protected because of hunting, more than double the area of national parks in sub-Saharan Africa. They calculate that trophy hunting is worth more than £100 million to Africa.

There are, however, a range of problems to overcome, the researchers say: in some parts of Africa the hunting is inadequately managed, while in Asia its overall effect remains detrimental to conservation.

Mark Wright, of WWF, said that while the wildlife organisation regarded hunting as “an 0option of last resort”, it could have a positive effect on wildlife.

In particular, he said, in many areas where there was no eco-tourism, it provided a source of income far less damaging than the alternative of illegal and uncontrolled poaching.

Rather than take the “high moral ground”, he said, conservationists needed to be practical and accept that hunting could be the lesser of two evils.

Clearly written by an anti-hunter who just can't bring himself to be biased despite the facts and write a totally "positive" report on hunting

Original von bwanamich
Clearly written by an anti-hunter who just can't bring himself to be biased despite the facts and write a totally "positive" report on hunting

Sorry to say this, but I absolutely agree with the author. The reason is simple. If the same effort was made without hunting some animals, the result would be even better.

Of course this would mean that the income to finance the whole project goes down the drain and therefore it is much more difficult to be put into practice. But as long as it could be possible, provided governments, NGOs and the private sector would be prepared to finance it, hunting remains the smaller evil.

It is a matter of personality / personal opinion. Hunting reduces the damage, hence it is a step forward. It is a successful way to improve the situation. But are you satisfied with that or do you want the perfect solution? If your aim is the perfect solution, your goal is much further away and requires much more work or fighting for.

In countries where hunting is allowed, it probably makes sense to take hunting as a first step to reduce further damage until the final solution can be put into practice.

But what about countries like Kenya where hunting is banned? Do you want to introduce a new law that allows hunting and then get rid of it again once you can put a better solution into practice? I believe not. Might as well work on a better solution from the very beginning.
I mainly believe so because the introduction of such a new law would open lots of new back-doors and all effort to control such a law (including the money) could be used straight away for the development of a better solution.

What I find frustrating is that there is more than enough money in this world to finance the perfect solution. It is just that no-one is prepared to pay it purely for the sake of the animals.

So many people are prepared to pay 20 000 $ to kill a single animal, why aren't they prepared to pay 20 000 $ simply to protect it ??

You keep referring to the "perfect solution" without stating what that is? I suppose, in your view, it means conservation without hunting. Why can controlled hunting not be a "perfect solution"? You must realise and accept that for some wildlife areas THAT IS already the "perfect solution".

As the article says, if it was not for hunters, certain species like the Bontebok would be extinct. That alone should tell you something, when it was at the brink of extinction, no animal welfare group stepped up to the plate. Why? On the other hand, hunters did, if only to ensure that they may continue hunting the species, and they did so while still allowing the species to promulgate to such an extent that it is no longer endangered. To me that means that controlled hunting can definetely be a conservation tool and a "perfect solution" to certain wildlife situations

Yes, for me the perfect solution is conservation without hunting.

Nico and I have spent endless hours trying to contact NGOs asking them for details on their projects and their opinion / suggestion on how to solve wildlife issues. The feedback we received was very poor.

I don't know. Are they just trying to finance their stay in Africa? Are they avoiding to uncover the fact that they do little about the situation? It is beyond my comprehension why they do not take the chance to promote themselves by providing us with such information.

What I mean to say is, that we obviously can not rely on NGOs to protect wildlife they way it should be done.

As a result we can continue to let wildlife go "down the drain" or open doors to hunting companies that are interested in conserving wildlife because it is the hand that feeds them.

But I do not wish to give up so easily and say "oh well, because NGOs obviously can not be bothered, let's put wildlife conservation into the hands of hunters."

Yes, hunting companies have saved animals from extinction and will continue to do so, hence it would be better than nothing, but I want more.

I still don't know how, but I am very tempted to sniff around in the projects of NGOs and provide my result to the public. I believe it is high time to point out the wrotten apples between NGOs so that donators can support those that are seriously trying to help rather than wasting their money.

Carsten,
Auditing NGO's can take a lifetime. There are just too many. I think any NGO that is funded through donations, etc, such as most wildlife NGO's, spend soo much time writing reports explaining where the money was spent to their respective boards that they might see your invitation as just another request for more reports. Do any of these NGO's you've contacted have a website? Most should! In which case visiting their website might give you some of the answers you seek. Hek, you might even post a link to them on bushdrums....

From a personal point of view - the hunters that I have met and have spoken to know and do more about conservation than most people working in the tourism field and defenitely more than most logges and privately owned camps / hotels.
Yes - it is about income as well but lets be honest - those guys working for various NGO's are not there for free and as Bwanamich correctly siad, there are too many NGO's and they spend too much time wrting reports, paper work, waiting to get go aheads from various bodies and time goes on and on.......
I work woth some of them and I can say from experince; they do take their time to do anything!!
Even to answer a simple e mail.