http://inhabitat.com/costa-rica-becomes-first-latin-american-country-to-ban-hunting-for-sport/
Yay for Costa Rica! And it looks like they made this decision BEFORE the Cecil murder.
LOL, Bay. How can it be a “contorted account”? It’s a direct quote from the IUCN.
Yes, the IUCN document you cite does say that “Trophy hunting, when well managed, may assist in furthering conservation objectives . . .” But in the very next sentence it says that “if poorly managed, it can fail to deliver these benefits.” And it goes on to say that “where poorly managed, trophy hunting can have negative ecological impacts, including altered age/sex structures, social disruption, deleterious genetic effects, and in extreme cases, population declines. It can also be difficult to ensure that benefits from hunting accrue to those in the best position to help conservation.”
The IUCN document I cite and the one you cite are not inconsistent. The one you cite says that, in principle, trophy hunting may be beneficial from a conservation perspective where well managed, but that will not always be the case; where poorly managed, trophy hunting can be harmful. The document I cite says that, in fact, poorly managed trophy hunting is a major cause of endangerment to the lion, in particular. The document I cite is also very clear in saying that this is not true across entirety of the lion’s range, citing four Southern African countries including Zimbabwe, plus a single isolated remnant lion subpopulation in India, as being in relatively good shape, implying those populations are well managed. But as I argued above, if you accept the IUCN’s argument, then you ought to find the acts Palmer is alleged to have committed to be particularly appalling and repugnant, because they clearly undercut the best efforts of the government of Zimbabwe to ensure that the trophy hunting of lions is well managed. We can delve into the particulars if you like, but no responsible wildlife official would authorize the killing of the healthy alpha male of a large pride of lions in a protected habitat sanctuary. Where lion hunting is well managed, it typically authorizes the killing of older animals, beyond their reproductive years, who are no longer capable of contributing to the gene pool of the next generation, and to be frank, it often involves “put and take” killing, where the targeted redundant lion is deliberately separated from the larger population and relocated to the kill site where it may be easily slaughtered by the hunter who has paid a high price for the privilege of being the executioner. What “sport” there is in that, I’ll never know, but apparently some people, mostly Americans, are willing to pay a high price for it.
As for my own view. I understand the IUCN’s position in the abstract, but in real world applications I have seen precious few situations in which trophy hunting is truly well managed, to the benefit of the target species. Most developing countries simply don’t have the technical expertise, administrative apparatus, and enforcement resources to ensure that sound conservation policies are carried out. Heck, our own Fish and Wildlife Service here in the U.S., although it has some technical expertise, doesn’t have sufficient administrative capacity and enforcement resources to effectively enforce our own wildlife conservation laws. Consequently, I’m mostly unmoved by the abstract policy argument in favor of trophy hunting, though I’m willing to entertain examples of where it has been successful in practice. In my experience, the conservation rationale for trophy hunting is most vigorously pushed by trophy hunters themselves, who by and large are more motivated by the thrill of the kill than by genuine conservation objectives. After all, if they truly were motivated by conservation, they’d probably get a greater “bang for the buck” by devoting the money they now spend on trophy hunting to conservation organizations than by spending all that money to kill a single individual of the species. But they find the conservation rationale a convenient fig leaf, because they don’t want to admit publicly that they just enjoy killing rare, exotic, and endangered species.
I separate all this from my own moral judgments about sport hunting. I personally find hunting for “sport” rather than to put meat on the table to be morally repugnant. That’s not to say I would legally ban it.
If trophy hunting is to be banned, then it is the anti-hunting moralists who need to come up with the money to save the lions. Let’s hope they can prioritize the species over their need to bray about their personal sensitivities.
Safaris are very lucrative, and the $ being spent on big game hunting was not going to conservation anyway. The “anti hunting moralists” are not responsible one iota for funding anything. Perhaps the corrupt governments and poachers should fund the preservation of the animals instead of lining their own pockets.
@bclintonk, thank you for that well written and informative post.
I am curious to hear about bclintonk’s experience? What is the extent of your experience? Is it professional? As a hobbyist? A volunteer? A voracious reader?
And also still wondering about bay’s travel experiences in SA. Would be lovely for both to respond to those questions.
@GreatKid, Like many participants in this forum I am keen to retain some anonymity, therefore I’m reluctant to say too much in response to your question. I am a voracious reader, yes, I can safely say that much. Beyond that, let’s just say that I have taken a keen interest in issues of species conservation and natural resources management over the course of many decades, both as a volunteer activist and to some extent in my professional life. On the hunting side, I did hunt a couple of times with my Dad when I was a teenager, but never killed anything, never even shot at anything. I have never had a desire to hunt as a fully grown adult. But I did grow up in a community where many, perhaps most people were avid hunters, including some members of my own family, so I feel that I have a pretty good sense of how these issues look from the hunter’s side of the gun barrel.
I wasn’t remotely thinking that you would divulge your identity! I was looking for information in general terms. From what you are stating you are a voracious reader, a volunteer and an activist. Those things in and of themselves are admirable but don’t necessarily position you as an authority. I say this respectfully.
I know that I am not an authority I have read a decent amount I have spoken to a number of people who have hunted in Africa, although not for exotic or dangerous game.
I can’t relate to killing to check another species off the list or to pose with and later mount a perceived as dangerous big game animal. For me that’s a big “so what” and it has me question the motivation and mind set of that particular person.
I do believe that when animals have an economic value that they will be protected and managed well and that ultimately benefits the species of the animal itself.
Has ecotourism been responsible for sustaining a species of free ranging big game animal or bringing it back from a dubious position?
I do wonder what these hunters are thinking when they return from Africa with all these photos and “taxidermy.” Personally I think they severely underestimate the intelligence of people around them.
Do they think that we imagine that they are these brave warriors who have trudged through the wild jungles and risked life and limb in pursuit of ferocious beasts? Do they think that we imagine that it takes some special skill, survival instinct or an extra dose of bravery to kill one of these animals? Do they not realize that we all know how these hunts are conducted?
Honestly, I have to conclude that they are operating under the impression that the general public does not know anything in regard to how these animals are lured and then simply shot by people in jeeps with guns or bows. I really cannot figure out what these people are bragging about.
Well, now you’re misquoting me. You should read more carefully. I said I’m a voracious reader and for many decades have taken a keen interest in these issues as a volunteer activist “and to some extent in my professional life.” Meaning I sometimes have addressed these issues in a professional capacity, but I also do other things professionally. Does that make me an “authority”? Well, that’s a judgment call, I guess, but my work is widely cited within my own discipline and to some extent in other disciplines as well. So take that for what it’s worth.
Have you been to Africa, bclintock? I ask because your analysis does not reflect personal knowledge of the situation there, but perhaps I’m wrong. I feel your expertise comes from knowledge about U.S. wildlife conservation and you tend to project that knowledge onto what is happening in Africa. Am I right about that?
I understand some people are okay with food hunting but not sport hunting and certainly respect that point of view. However, from the animal’s perspective, I don’t see the difference. From our perspective, if we see ourselves as responsible for care-taking the animals, and all the natural world, it makes sense to me to only kill animals if it is necessary for their well-being or survival or our well-being or survival. Meat eating doesn’t seem all that necessary. Once we are accept eating them, I have trouble condemning other killings.
I can see it as a circle of life thing, and that we are predators eating what we kill. In that case, the hunters seem most admirable, followed by those who raise and butcher their own meat. It may also just be a lot healthier. jimho…
eta: there has been no reported wasting disease where I live
I think it’s great when you can combine your passions with your professional life to the point that that’s where your activism is directed. I wish more people in the our country could say this. While I certainly enjoy being a CC moderator and higher education is a passion of mine, it’s no where near what I did in my professional life!
I am curious as to how I misquoted you bclintonk? I just reiterated what you had said and expressed that those things in and of themselves do not make you an authority. I then stated that I say this respectfully. You suggested that I read more carefully, which is insulting.
Unfortunately that’s how threads of this nature most often evolve and why I typically just read them and don’t participate in them. They are much more emotional than substantive.
GreatKid: I’d be really interested in reading your posts, if you decided to participate.
View it from the animal’s perspective? Now we are anthropomorphising the animals.
Well, I’m still wondering if they have a sense of self, and maybe a soul.
If they have no feelings or perspective, what does any of it matter? I’m no philosopher, but did read Peter Singer, Animal Liberation a long while back and found him interesting.
It matters for endangered wildlife so that they don’t become extinct!
Maybe it matters to the humans, not the animals.
I happen to be watching a show on feeding the whale sharks in an aquarium. We could go off on a conversation about animals in aquariums or zoos or other habitats for human interest and enjoyment that may or may not be in the best interest of the animals.