BCWF-Ending trophy hunting could actually be worse for endangered species

[BCWF]

Ending trophy hunting could actually be worse for endangered species


http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/opinio...man/index.html





(CNN)

I am a lifelong animal lover and vegetarian for whom the idea of killing animals for fun is repellent, and have committed my career to African wildlife conservation.

You might, therefore, expect that I would have been thrilled with Donald Trump's suggestion -- influenced apparently by media and animal rights pressures -- that he could decide against the US importation of trophy-hunted elephants (and possibly other species such as lions).
However, I am fearful that impulsive and emotional responses to trophy hunting -- no matter how well-meaning -- could in fact intensify the decline of species such as lions.
There is no doubt that iconic African species are in serious trouble -- lion numbers have nearly halved in 20 years, and as we estimate that only around 24,000 remain, lions are now as rare as rhinos in Africa, and 15 times rarer than elephants .


From the furore over trophy hunting, the public could be forgiven for thinking that it was the major threat facing lions. But in reality, the key issues are loss of habitat, prey loss from bushmeat poaching and conflict with local people .


That conflict usually involves poisoning, shooting or spearing lions, either to retaliate for (or try to prevent) attacks on livestock or people. Some traditional killing of lions also still occurs, where young men spear them to gain wealth and status.


It is unquestionable that poorly managed trophy hunting can negatively impact lion populations, and it is imperative that hunting is well managed. Systems have been established in places like Zimbabwe to regulate hunting, and while they will never be perfect, they are working relatively well.
Furthermore, any negative impacts need to be set against the positives such a land use can offer. People may find it very strange that there can be any positive aspect to hunting threatened species -- surely any additional mortality heaped on a declining species must unquestionably be a bad thing?

The reality is more complicated. Of course, if trophy hunting is the main reason for the decline in an area's lion population, then stopping it is entirely justified and desirable.
However, in most places, this is not the case. And if trophy hunting diminishes those other threats -- by protecting habitat, preventing poaching or acting as a buffer between parks and human populations -- then overall the threatened species could be better off.

People are often confused by the "benefit" of hunting, imagining it is about money going to local people. While that can be important, particularly in remote communal areas with few other revenue options, the most important benefit from an African conservation perspective is that trophy hunting maintains vast areas of land for wildlife, which is invaluable in an ever more human-dominated world.


There is a risk that by banning trophy importation without considering the alternative land uses, the headline-grabbing but usually small threat posed by trophy hunting could be replaced by the far more silent, deadly and larger threats of land conversion, poaching and conflict.

Photo-tourism is often touted as a replacement -- but in many remote, less attractive areas, it would not generate sufficient revenue to maintain that land as a wildlife area. If there are non-lethal alternatives to trophy hunting that could safeguard the same amount of land, then I would be the first to support them -- but the reality is that no such alternatives currently exist for most hunting areas.


People may hate the ethics around trophy hunting, but to a lion (and to a conservationist), the consequence is the same whether it is shot by a trophy hunter, poisoned by a local villager or starved from lack of prey, so the aim should be to reduce overall unsustainable mortality rather than focusing on one particular activity.

We should remember that the management of African wildlife is the right and responsibility of range states -- who have managed to maintain populations of large, costly wildlife while in the Global North we have largely extirpated ours.

The US-based calls to ban trophy hunting in Africa seem particularly hypocritical considering the scale of domestic US hunting -- it would save far more animals if the activity was banned in-country, and would not impact the lives of rural Africans and their wildlife.

Our ultimate goal should be to really understand the threats to each population and aim to reduce those, based on science rather than emotion.

Otherwise we could be condemning far more of these magnificent animals to death, even if such deaths occur far beyond the gaze and hype of the media.

It is a cause for celebration that so many people love lions, elephants and other wild animals -- but we should be extremely wary of basing decisions on emotion alone, in case we worsen their conservation outlook, and effectively love them to death.

[Taylor329]

Replace "Donald Trump" with "John Horgan", and any of the african animals with "Grizzly Bear", and aside from the numbers of animals, this could be a well written article for our current situation. I am extremely surprised but even more pleased that this came from CNN, and written by a vegetarian to boot! While the author doesn't get into specifics too much in regards to numbers of animals and dollars spent, he/she gets the point across very clearly. Everybody should be sharing this on their social media pages, get these articles to drown out all the negative media coming from "animal rights groups".

[HarryToolips]

^^^x2.......,....

[Rob Chipman]

Trophy hunting in Africa generates a lot more than it does in BC. The idea may be sound, but be careful about trumpeting the current system we have here too much. According to the Auditor General's report we charge a non-resident $1,030 for a grizzly. $30 goes to habitat, $1000 to general revenue. There are spin off benefits but if you crunch the numbers and compare them with, say, a 15% tax on a real estate purchase by a foreigner and the spin offs from that....(Sell a million dollar condo on the 25th floor in downtown Van to a foreigner and you raise $150k for general revenue, plus you create work for a bunch of guys. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying it's serious money compared to what trophy hunting raises in BC. Tell Raincoast or Pacific Wild how much money trophy hunting rises and they'll welcome the debate/dispute/referendum/social media war).


That said, the article is refreshing. I believe CNN did a similar TV episode with Corey Knowlton on the black rhino hunt.

[Darksith]

Trophy hunting in Africa generates a lot more than it does in BC. The idea may be sound, but be careful about trumpeting the current system we have here too much. According to the Auditor General's report we charge a non-resident $1,030 for a grizzly. $30 goes to habitat, $1000 to general revenue. There are spin off benefits but if you crunch the numbers and compare them with, say, a 15% tax on a real estate purchase by a foreigner and the spin offs from that....(Sell a million dollar condo on the 25th floor in downtown Van to a foreigner and you raise $150k for general revenue, plus you create work for a bunch of guys. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying it's serious money compared to what trophy hunting raises in BC. Tell Raincoast or Pacific Wild how much money trophy hunting rises and they'll welcome the debate/dispute/referendum/social media war).


That said, the article is refreshing. I believe CNN did a similar TV episode with Corey Knowlton on the black rhino hunt.

Trophy hunting in Africa directly funds conservation, conservancies...in BC hunting money goes into general coffers and nothing comes back to conservation. Its not an NDP thing, its a BC government thing and we must have our dollars go back into conservation...

[Pemby_mess]

The key takeaway i got from the article, is the critical importance of habitat protection. How that is ultimately accomplished, is less relevant to the proliferation and conservation of large mammals. According to the writer, the most positive factor in the success of a wildlife conservation campaign, is well designed land use decisions. Hunting can be a part of that bigger picture, but is only well and truly positive if it's;

a) a well managed , well regulated hunt itself
b) necessarily contributing to larger objectives such as habitat conservation.

In a complex, diverse, economy, such as we have here in BC, the money generated from trophy hunting pales in comparison to most of the other potential uses for the land. Especially intensively extractive endeavours. Unfortunately, habitat conservation here, often (not always), involves some form of economic sacrifice for it to occur. At best, trophy hunting in BC can be seen as economic mitigation, at a net-cost for a preserved land base. Contrast that with Africa, where for a variety of reasons, trophy hunting may provide the highest and best use of a similar land area; generating far more revenue than other potential endeavours might. At least for now.

In short, land use, conservation, and preservation, are all, obviously, very important to those of us who wish to see hunting opportunity expanded anywhere. The very complex socio-economic interests and aspirations of all the land use stakeholders here in BC need to be accounted for while making land use decisions, and certainly hunters need to be an important part of that. However, I would be very careful in trying to apply unrelated lessons learned from a very different situation in Africa, to our circumstances here.

[325]

The key takeaway i got from the article, is the critical importance of habitat protection. How that is ultimately accomplished, is less relevant to the proliferation and conservation of large mammals. According to the writer, the most positive factor in the success of a wildlife conservation campaign, is well designed land use decisions. Hunting can be a part of that bigger picture, but is only well and truly positive if it's;

a) a well managed , well regulated hunt itself
b) necessarily contributing to larger objectives such as habitat conservation.

In a complex, diverse, economy, such as we have here in BC, the money generated from trophy hunting pales in comparison to most of the other potential uses for the land. Especially intensively extractive endeavours. Unfortunately, habitat conservation here, often (not always), involves some form of economic sacrifice for it to occur. At best, trophy hunting in BC can be seen as economic mitigation, at a net-cost for a preserved land base. Contrast that with Africa, where for a variety of reasons, trophy hunting may provide the highest and best use of a similar land area; generating far more revenue than other potential endeavours might. At least for now.

In short, land use, conservation, and preservation, are all, obviously, very important to those of us who wish to see hunting opportunity expanded anywhere. The very complex socio-economic interests and aspirations of all the land use stakeholders here in BC need to be accounted for while making land use decisions, and certainly hunters need to be an important part of that. However, I would be very careful in trying to apply unrelated lessons learned from a very different situation in Africa, to our circumstances here.

I don't agree. Even in North America, hunters are the financial backbone of wildlife conservation. Some 90 cents of each dollar spend on conservation across North America comes from the pockets of hunters. Of course there are other groups who value wildlife for a variety of reasons, but they don't generally offer much financial support for conservation.

You would do well to study a little of the history and success of the North American Wildlife Management Model.

[Travalanche]

I'd like to know how many death threats she has received since this was published. I'm willing to bet it's in the thousands. Good on her for putting herself out there like that to try and start a rational conversation. Much respect.

[Pemby_mess]

I don't agree. Even in North America, hunters are the financial backbone of wildlife conservation. Some 90 cents of each dollar spend on conservation across North America comes from the pockets of hunters. Of course there are other groups who value wildlife for a variety of reasons, but they don't generally offer much financial support for conservation.

You would do well to study a little of the history and success of the North American Wildlife Management Model.

Actually, as luck would have it, I have recently studied the NAWMM; and on your advice from a discussion in a previous thread!

I don't think I'm saying anything that contravenes principles outlined in the NAWMM. I'm certainly not saying that hunter's don't contribute to wildlife conservation in financially important ways.

What I am saying, is consistent with the article being discussed, and that the big picture is more complex than simply "funding" the conservation of species important to trophy hunters. The article is making the point that African trophy hunting is a big part of incentivizing the preservation of habitat in Africa. In industrialized countries, the financial incentives don't work the same way. In fact, looking at it from a purely economic standpoint; mining, oil and gas, logging, hydro infrastructure all contribute to incentivizing land use in ways that can be adverse to the same habitat preservation and species conservation objectives that hunters need to incentivize. Again, from a purely economic standpoint, hunting barely factors into the financial incentives for land use most of the time.

Now, i'm not saying that non-economic interests, including hunters, shouldn't have a seat at the stakeholder table. Far from it. It's just that you can't use the same purely economic argument to justify your perspectives as a hunter here in BC, that may hold true in Africa.

[325]

Actually, as luck would have it, I have recently studied the NAWMM; and on your advice from a discussion in a previous thread!

I don't think I'm saying anything that contravenes principles outlined in the NAWMM. I'm certainly not saying that hunter's don't contribute to wildlife conservation in financially important ways.

What I am saying, is consistent with the article being discussed, and that the big picture is more complex than simply "funding" the conservation of species important to trophy hunters. The article is making the point that African trophy hunting is a big part of incentivizing the preservation of habitat in Africa. In industrialized countries, the financial incentives don't work the same way. In fact, looking at it from a purely economic standpoint; mining, oil and gas, logging, hydro infrastructure all contribute to incentivizing land use in ways that can be adverse to the same habitat preservation and species conservation objectives that hunters need to incentivize. Again, from a purely economic standpoint, hunting barely factors into the financial incentives for land use most of the time.

Now, i'm not saying that non-economic interests, including hunters, shouldn't have a seat at the stakeholder table. Far from it. It's just that you can't use the same purely economic argument to justify your perspectives as a hunter here in BC, that may hold true in Africa.

I agree that the value of maintaining wildlife and habitat is not motivated by financial considerations to the same degree as in African nations, as we are simply wealthier with more options. The non-economic arguments for wildlife conservation are valid, but where actual work is done to conserve wildlife and important habitats in NA (transplants, burns, land purchases, etc, etc), most of the money comes from hunter dollars, and often outside of government.