The internationally regulated trophy quotas of African leopards are regarded to primarily benefit the trade in their hide, rather than the health of the species as a wholeByrdyak / Wikimedia Commons / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
I know what you are thinking – “Twenty thousand elephants? Surely there has been a mistake here.” But no, the suggestion is real, even if the intent behind it was a more of a bluff. In response to proposed German restrictions on the import of hunting trophies and broader opposition to hunting in Southern Africa, Botswanan president Mokgweetsi Masisi hit back in defence of a practice he sees as crucial to maintaining his country’s ecosystem.
This is not the first time tensions have flared on the issue; Botswana’s wildlife minister made a similar threat in response to a UK bill earlier this year. This feeling that Global North countries are dictating policy based on idealised conceptions of nature that they are separated from is increasingly common in Southern Africa. Botswana, home to one-third of global elephants, reversed its own 2014 ban on trophy hunting largely due to pressure from rural communities. Why then is the recreational slaughter of wildlife so popular as a conservation practice, particularly with those so close to the subject?
“This feeling that Global North countries are dictating policy based on idealised conceptions of nature that they are separated from is increasingly common in Southern Africa”
For today: ‘hunting’ means trophy hunting, wealthy tourists paying for permits to shoot specific animals for sport under supervision. This is different from poaching, where gangs kill animals to sell their body parts on the black market. Knowing this, the idea of hunting for conservation is simple: have rich prospective hunters pay large sums for the experience of killing a small number of specific animals. The money paid can then be used to fund conservation programs, and only certain species are allowed to be killed.
This funding model is used in the US, where an average of 60% of state wildlife budgets come from the sale of hunting licences for ducks and a cut of arms and ammunition sales. Furthermore, permits can then be issued for only species in abundance, having hunters essentially pay to do the population control required for ecological balance. This idea is at the base of Masisi’s argument, claiming the elephant population is too high because of conservation efforts with no hunting to control their numbers. Humans in rural areas live near elephants after all, and it is perhaps harder to be jubilant about their resurgent population if they make a habit of trampling your crops and fences.
Does this two-pronged approach hold up to scrutiny? Taking first the economic argument, scale is important to consider. Across African countries which do allow trophy hunting, the profits from the practice are worth an average of 1.8% of tourism revenues in these same countries. This is still a life changing amount of money in the rural areas of Botswana where photo tourists are unlikely to visit. Though it would be wrong to ignore the testimony of people in those areas, they are a small part of the picture.
“Across African countries which do allow trophy hunting, the profits from the practice are worth an average of 1.8% of tourism revenues in these same countries”
Reports from rural Zambia paint a very different picture. Despite legal mandates that 50% of hunting licence fees be returned to community resource boards, 2018 investigations suggested very little of the money was being seen by rural communities. On a broader scale, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature has raised concerns about the transparency of fund distribution, estimating only 30 cents a year reach rural areas.
The argument (put forward by The Economist amongst others) that fees from hunting reach rural communities ignored by other tourists misses the way money is controlled. The physical location of the practice makes little difference. Generally, wildlife agencies receive their budgets from governments, which collate funding from a diversity of sources and distribute accordingly. The idea of a simple input to funding practice is muddied by the constraints of the real world, making the economic argument for hunting as conservation less viable than many imagine.
The economic picture is messy at best, but the main point Masisi makes is about management. So we must ask, is hunting an effective ecological management strategy? Ideally, permits are issued for species in abundance, with limitations on the age and location of individuals, updated in line with evidence. This is rarely the case, with breaches of the principle on all levels.
Even well-planned systems are a bribe away from subversion, due to the diffuse nature of enforcement. Animals are baited out of reserves to be shot in technically legal locations with alarming frequency. On a systemic level, mounting evidence indicates that profit is the driving incentive in many permit schemes, rather than biological necessity. The internationally regulated trophy quotas of African leopards are regarded to primarily benefit the trade in their hide, rather than the health of the species as a whole, while the US system maintains populations of several charismatic species in spite of the damage to ecosystems they cause.
“Even well-planned systems are a bribe away from subversion, due to the diffuse nature of enforcement”
Fundamentally, the targets of hunting and conservation diverge past the superficial goal of having more animals. The fragmented and artificially maintained populations of hunted animals are the antithesis of the connected and diverse populations conservation aims to foster. Ironically, the human-elephant conflict used to advertise hunting at the start of the article is often worsened by it. Hunters target bulls, the most aggressive and dangerous members of an intelligent and long-lived species, while also increasing the frequency their contact with humans. Whether in the specifics of implementation, or the holistic purposes, trophy hunting finds itself at odds with ecological management.
Emerging from between the lines of many pro-hunting arguments is the theme of a hard truth being told. Advocates of hunting are following scientific fact and reasoning, so they say, rather than the emotional drive of pro-ban arguments. This is evident from Masisi’s comments, as well as countless others who hold similar positions. I think it is worth noting that ‘science’ itself cannot answer the policy question of hunting, only supplement the decision with case-specific evidence. Ecological and biological responses can be predicted scientifically, but a policy case must be made with reference to wider societal concerns.
Still, it is only fair to give an alternative. Dart shooting to sedate, not kill, animals is a simple substitution in many existing frameworks, while dedicated population management schemes perform far better when their aims do not clash with the whims of tourists. Botswana has every right to identify the very real problems with its elephant population, but it is difficult to argue that hunting is the best solution.
Varsity is the independent newspaper for the University of Cambridge, established in its current form in 1947. In order to maintain our editorial independence, our print newspaper and news website receives no funding from the University of Cambridge or its constituent Colleges.
We are therefore almost entirely reliant on advertising for funding and we expect to have a tough few months and years ahead.
In spite of this situation, we are going to look at inventive ways to look at serving our readership with digital content and of course in print too!
Therefore we are asking our readers, if they wish, to make a donation from as little as £1, to help with our running costs. Many thanks, we hope you can help!
Source link : https://www.varsity.co.uk/science/27635
Author :
Publish date : 2024-05-16 03:00:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.