?

I'm sure we'll see a lot of different takes on this question. Here is mine.

I think hunting does provide financial support for conservation. For starters, yes, there are some parks that conserve without allowing hunting, but how many of those types of parks would survive if lots more of them started popping up? Are there enough tourists to Africa each year to support thousands of parks that don't allow hunting? I don't think there are. But there are enough to support a few.

Also consider that with many hunting destinations, conservation is going on, at least on a small scale, at each of these places. Just for one example: is anyone worried that Sable will become extinct as long as some outfitters are managing them for profit? Now consider that the only Sable left were on 'public' land and there wasn't enough incentive to stop poaching. I would worry then that maybe they wouldn't survive. Note: this was just an example, and I randomly chose Sable as an example. I'm not suggesting that I have any data that the Sable is in trouble.

OK, those are my thoughts. Others? Should be an interesting thread.

Paul,

Use Scimitar horned Oryx as an example. If hunting them were to be outlawed how many would there be???

?

Isnt, Kenya a good enough example as to what happens when hunting is stopped !

In a word...NO! What Frederik says...says it all. And to think; the anti-hunting crowd was going to save Kenya. Wasn't it just a few months ago Kenya said no AGAIN to hunting? And they gave the wise ol' Owl 10 million shillings? Fences for the game parks my ass! Now all hell has broken loose and guess what? They want the world to come in and save them. Reopen hunting and save yourself.
LDK

?

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Is it hunting per se that saves wildlife populations or is the injection of funds derived from hunting, into conservation that saves populations ?

I think it's the injection of funds derived from hunting, but without the hunting, you're not getting those funds. So in my book, the hunting is quite important. To suggest that without hunting those funds would still be there seems naive to me.

When man has effectively become the top of the food chain, he must fulfill the requirements of that niche.

Without predation, prey species have boom and bust reproduction cycles and populations. Appropriate predation prevents disease cycles that are more devastating and difficult for a prey species to rebound from.

If we interfere at all with the cycle, we must participate in it.

Alf,

Well lets look at it in this way as well.
Except for Namibia, South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Tanzania and the couple of west African countries that does allow hunting name me a couple of countries that has thriving wildlife that actually grow in numbers.

Maybe you are right Kenya would maybe not have worked but so it could be with the rest of Africa as well, we all know things change all the time so instead of looking at what happened in the past we should rather be looking to adabt in the current situation. (Overpopulation of humans, elephant, drought, floods, famine and AIDS)

And then out of this whole example take away the good money that comes in trough hunting and what are we left with, busloads of tourists and people who cannot manage the aniamls.

hi
I beleive the commercial value of sport hunting is garant for nearly all the game animals survival . if sport hunting become banned then sooner or later all these games are vanishing as bush-meat very sad situation
yes

NO

some interesting points ..

in very game rich areas , okavango delta , serengetti , luangwa valley etc etc , the non consumptive tourism (non hunting) makes actually far in excess of what hunting could make , take a prime example , mombo camp okavango delta , 18 beds , fully booked for two years out 365 days a year ...1700 per person per night !!!! you do the maths ... there are a lot of other camps that work well like this aswell ..

thats to say that yes in game rich areas there is a futire without hunting ...not so for two other areas

1/marginal areas , like most hunting areas where one has to work to see game , these afeas cannot compete with the prime areas and so without hunters would wither and die , and soon be home to huts and goats ..

2/the other great example of what hunting has done is in south africa where many would be sheep farms in the winterberg mountains , cattle farms elsewhere have been high fenced , restocked and used for hunting ...great story to have the land back under the hoofs of wildlife rather than livestock ...

not to say these are the only two examples , but certainly strong ones !!!!

kenya has several million tourists per year ,,,granted many of them on cheap tours where they are crammed into zebra striped minibusses , the bottom line though is that they all eat , have to have somewhere to sleep and pay park fees , without them there would be no massai mara (that actually belongs to massai by the way)

areas in the okavango delta that used to be hunting (the duba plains concession) is now photographic and the community recieves more dollars and there is more antipoaching ...it is , however a very very game rich area.

the bottom line is that you could not have 18 hunters in one camp , all looking at the same wildlife ...you can with non consumptive... the flipside is that the game has to be outstanding for the daily rates to get up there and the bookings to flow

take an area like the omay in zimbabwe without hunters and hunting that area would be devoid of wildlife many many years ago , with hunters dollars putting a value on the wildlife there is antipoaching and a reason for the wildlife to be preserved .

i entirely disagree that without hunting all game rich areas would collapse , but i wholeheartedly feel that the marginal areas would have no future ..

like it or not there is a lot less hunting tourism and hunting dollars flowing into africa than phototourism ..

another argument for hunting is that the impact on a well controlled area by one hunter at a time is far less , an elephant hunter in botswana leaves on average 60k in the area when he is done , it takes a lot of photo safari clients to make the same $$ ...extra resupply , extra pollution , better road networks (1 mile of road destroys over an acre of vegetation)...

gentlemen , and ladies there are argments in each direction , i feel as hunters we have a great responsibility and that is to be sensitive and professional out there so that a would be non hunter can grasp an understanding of what we do ...

we cannot justify what we do as individuals, simply put its because its fun and challenging to hunt and shoot stuff....someone who is a non hunter will never get that and we can never even try and make them get it .... we can justify the economics of hunting ...and a good knowledge of the facts will be our best weapon in that battle ..

good hunting all of you !!!!

Absolutely not! No way!

African wildlife will not likely survive in the long run even with hunting, simply because people and wild animals, especially dangerous wild animals, do not mix. People win; animals lose.

But hunting will prolong the survival of African wildlife by the finance it provides, which funds the maintenance of reserves, anti-poaching efforts and community support.

And the activity of hunting, hunting itself, will also prolong the survival of African wildlife. Armed hunters and game scouts, out and hunting daily in the field, are a deterrent to poaching. No poacher is afraid of a minibus full of eco-tourists.

Hunting puts conservation on the side of capitalism -- the most powerful social force known. Additionally, Hunting needs lots of animals -- tourists come to see pretty birds, some lions, elephants, rhinos, maybe a few hippos and crocs -- they aren't going to care about dikdiks, bongo, other things that won't come up to the side of a tour bus. It also doesn't support the local population as well -- men that grew up being taught to be hunters (poachers to us) can be hired to be trackers, skinners, etc.

?

Hunting is nice, but birth control is the only thing that can save the wild life in Africa.

No way short of plague and disease of biblical proportion. Maybe some goog old fashioned african genocide and war would work but that gets messy. Only if animals have value will they survive. Otherwise they are either crop raiding nusances or bush meat both having no intrinsic value. Hutning isnt the only answer but it is certainly a very effective one. Combined with habitat restoration, breeding programs etc it makes a powerful force for the good of the animals overall welfare.

Hi Guys
ALF alluded to it in his response about Sable habitat.

African wildlife WILL NOT srvive without suitable habitat.

To conseve habitat the impact of the various types of land use become the limiting factor.

While tourism may currently generate more dollars than hunting it also has a much larger "footptint" and thus impacts on the environment than hunting does. Purely because there are less hunters than tourists.

As the "price" of land use increases to limit the "footprint" effect, that is the cost to the tourist increases so that there are less tourists to limit the environmental impact of tourism of the native habitat, will tourists pay ever increasing prices to photograph wildlife.Probably not.

Will hunters pay more and more to hunt, probably.


At what "price" is African wildlife and habitat surcured for future generations of hunters and tourists.

I think that the effect on habitat of land use will be the determining factor in Wildlife survival.

Not to mention the effects of climate change on habitat and wildlife survival.

In the long run the higest value land use with the lowest foot print imapct (environmental damage) will be the vehicle of African wildlife survival.

That may well be hunting.

So maybe NO, African wildlife may not survive without hunting.


Regards
Deafdog

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaysto...fm?story_id=10521341

Point and shoot
Jan 14th 2008
From Economist.com

Killing African animals may help conserve them


TOURISM is a ready source of hard currency for developing countries, but can tourist dollars encourage landowners to protect wildlife? Nature-, green- or eco-tourism has certainly taken off across the developing world since its inception in the 1980s. In many parts of Africa, photo-safaris and other forms of tourism that don’t involve killing animals have been hailed as an alternative to hunting.

But whether such non-consumptive use can provide the kind of revenue countries need without having to resort to upsetting any Western bunny-huggers remains to be seen. Because, according to data on wildlife and tourism in Kenya that Mike Norton-Griffiths, a former environmental consultant based in Nairobi, recently published in World Economics, tourism isn’t as profitable as one might hope.

Be cruel to be kindWhile Kenya has a number of nature reserves, most of its wildlife lives on privately owned land, and killing or exporting such animals has been banned since 1977. Before that, landowners might have made money through ranching, hunting, tanning, taxidermy, curios and allowing animals on their land to be captured for sale or export. Mr Norton-Griffiths and Mohammed Said of the International Livestock Research Institute estimate that today the industry might be worth some $600m annually.

At present, however, landowners make around $5 per hectare per year from their wildlife—comparable to agricultural returns on only the driest, most marginal land. Where landowners rent an area for wildlife-viewing to a single tour company, they may average $10 per hectare. In the Mara area—which draws much of Kenya’s safari trade—rents can rise to $50 per hectare. However, in 95% of the land where wildlife is found, it nets landowners no money at all.

While tourism is popular in Kenya, it still provides few incentives for people to protect wildlife rather than turn their land over to agriculture. Suppose one owned a goat, but was not allowed to use it in any way: no slaughter, no milk, meat or skin. Suppose, further, that breaking these laws meant risking death or imprisonment. In fact, the only way of making money out of the goat would be if a passing minibus with a load of tourists happened to drive past and photograph it. Not many people would keep goats.

No wonder that despite millions spent to conserve Kenya’s wildlife, stock has declined by 70% since 1977. More than half of the most productive rangelands in Kenya, which used to hold most of the country’s wildlife, have been converted to agricultural production.

Some animal-welfare charities see Kenya as a great African success story: even if wildlife isn't being conserved, at least animals are not being killed or captured. Attempts last year to allow some consumptive use were met with heavy resistance by such organisations, thus raising fears that Kenya would lose its “ethical†tourist base if it were to allow anything to be shot.

The best way of conserving wildlife is to make it worth landlords’ while. Tourism can help up to a point. But most tourists will not travel more than a few hours from their hotel to see animals. Real wildlife tends to flourish far from people, hotels, roads and swimming pools: large-scale tourism and real wildlife are not compatible. New thinking about how to support wildlife conservation is needed in Kenya.

Rich-country conservationists need to be less squeamish about killing animals. They ought to support developing countries’ efforts to create incentives for their landowners to protect wildlife—even if it means sometimes shedding animals’ blood.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Not to highjack Saeeds "I need some help here please" thread i would start this one:

Most of the statements regarding the Pro's of hunting revolve around the percieved financial benefits of hunting to conservation;

From this then deducted that it is necessary to hunt to conserve? is this fact or fallacy ?

Whilst there is no doubt that hunting by visitor hunters in Africa contribute huge numbers in revenue ( only if monies are levied) the statement regarding conservation becomes muddied in that there is a strict provision attached in that the money actually finds its way directly or indirectly into the conservation pathway, if not there is no benefit!

Certainly there are many places that have game, where the money, from hunting, doesn’t help conserve wildlife, but then MOST of the money collected by animal rights, and abolitionists, never gets past the rights groups individual bank accounts. No matter where the animals are, most of that money doesn’t help them at all!

quote:

The second point or question then is:

Is it possible to have no hunting and still have conservation ?

Now if we take some examples in South Africa we see large ( if not the largest Private reserves) in South Africa, the majority of these function and have functioned for years without the financial benefit of hunting. In these cases the owners of property had financial means to procure and operate conservancies without needing financial support from the hunting industry. Most of these are run by multiple such owners (having adequate financial means) forming conservation co-ops pooling individually owned land into conservation co=operatives that run without hunting or allow limited hunting but the hunting is not the primary or even secondary source of income.

So whilst it is too our collective benefit to claim that hunting conserves one must be mindful that it is likely true in part if certain conditions are met, but on the other hand on it's own not correct as a statement.

What say you ?

In the above example, this works because the people who own the conservancies do the anti poaching duty!
Simply because these private conservancies don’t need the funds from hunting, in no way discounts the value of hunting to the preservation of all wildlife in concession where the funds from hunting are used in part to subsidize the locals, and with safari companies in the field giving temporary employment, and assist in the poaching control. Those funds also help fund the wildlife people who patrol those areas, keeping poaching down. The fact is, it “IS†to our benefit to claim hunting is a large part of what keeps all wildlife the world over in the eye of those who want to see them flourish, because no matter what anyone says, the money generated by the hunting community is valuable to the continued existence of all wildlife, not just game animals!

quote:

Originally posted by ivan carter:
some interesting points ..

take an area like the omay in zimbabwe without hunters and hunting that area would be devoid of wildlife many many years ago , with hunters dollars putting a value on the wildlife there is antipoaching and a reason for the wildlife to be preserved .

i entirely disagree that without hunting all game rich areas would collapse , but i wholeheartedly feel that the marginal areas would have no future ..

good hunting all of you !!!!

The problem with the thinking quoted above is, when the marginal areas are poached out, and turned into sadsa fields, and goat pastures, the poachers will simply move into the game rich areas. Meat, ivory, horn, and skins are simply more valuable to the poacher than the photog's desire to look at simi-tame park animals! As long as there is a market for illegal bush meat, there is a need for as many armed people in the bush, and is possible. The safari outfitters are beneficial in many ways not readily obvious to the general observer, and when the observer is already opposed to hunting for any reason, he tends to turn an additional blind eye, to hunting's benefit to the protection of wildlife species.