http://traveller24.news24.com/...to-wildlife-20160818



Over-exploitation is the biggest threat to wildlife
2016-08-18 13:06 - Andreas Wilson-Späth




A comprehensive new review of the threats facing global biodiversity indicates that a popular approach to saving the planet’s wild animals from extinction may be fatally flawed.

‘Sustainable utilisation’ is a catch phrase that is as fashionable in wildlife conservation circles as it is controversial. In essence, it suggests that natural resources – in this instance wild animals – can be ‘harvested’ in a way that will not endanger the continued survival of the species in question. Furthermore, proponents argue that this form of commercial exploitation is a legitimate (some would say the only) way to raise the money required to fund conservation measures.

This philosophy of sustainable utilisation is central to the South African government’s wildlife conservation policy, it underpins claims by the hunting fraternity that killing animals for sport contributes to their conservation, and it forms the basis for arguments that legalising the international trade in products such as elephant ivory and rhino horns will reduce poaching.

New research shows that the belief that humans are capable of using wild animals in this fashion without ultimately causing their demise may be misplaced. In an article published in the prestigious journal Nature this month, a group of conservation scientists assess the factors which are driving wild species towards extinction. They identify overexploitation, including hunting, as the biggest threat.

The authors analysed the threat information for 8688 ‘threatened’ and ‘near-threatened’ species contained in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. They found that climate change, pollution, invasive species, urbanisation and agricultural activities present some of the most serious dangers to these species.

The single biggest threat, however, is overexploitation, defined as “the harvesting of species from the wild at rates that cannot be compensated for by reproduction or regrowth”. It affects 6 241 of the species considered. After logging (the survey includes both plants and animals), the researchers show that hunting is the second most perilous subset of threat factors within the category of over-exploitation. Hunting impacts detrimentally on 1 680 species. That’s almost exactly the same number of species as are affected by global climate change.

Pointing out that the threats to endangered species are likely to remain as populations grow and human development continues at full pace, the authors of the paper warn that “of all the plant, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species that have gone extinct since AD 1500, 75% were harmed by over-exploitation or agricultural activity or both”.

According to one of them, Sean Maxwell of the University of Queensland in Australia, addressing these two major threat factors “must be at the forefront of the conservation agenda”, this being “key to turning around the biodiversity extinction crisis”.

As the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Johannesburg draws near, these new findings should inform the critical debate around a joint proposal submitted to the meeting by South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

In direct opposition to the 29 Central, West and East African nations that make up the core of the African Elephant Coalition, the three Southern African countries want to be allowed to sell ivory from their national stockpiles on a legalised international market. Citing the need to raise capital for conservation measures and poverty relief, they assert their right to sustainably utilise their wild animal resources. But the new findings identifying overexploitation as the most serious threat to thousands of species cast serious doubt on the validity and wisdom of this approach.

And the Nature article isn’t the only recent document that should give us pause for thought regarding so-called sustainable utilisation as an effective conservation philosophy. In July a large group of international scientists, including representatives from South Africa, came together to pen a declaration to save the world's terrestrial megafauna

This is especially relevant to the current debate since sub-Saharan Africa has the planet’s greatest diversity in megafauna (i.e. large-bodied animals) from elephants, gorillas and large cats to hippos, rhinos, giraffe, buffalo and more.

Noting that 59% of the world's largest carnivores and 60% of its largest herbivores are now classified as threatened with extinction on the IUCN Red List, the authors of the declaration highlight the fact that among other factors, “the current depletion of megafauna is also due to overhunting and persecution: shooting, snaring, and poisoning by humans ranging from individuals to governments, as well as by organized criminals and terrorists”.

They warn that “under a business-as-usual scenario, conservation scientists will soon be busy writing obituaries for species and subspecies of mega-fauna as they vanish from the planet. In fact, this process is already underway...”

In the face of growing evidence from researchers working in the field that over-exploitation represents the preeminent threat to the survival of many endangered species of wildlife, proposals for sustainable utilisation need to be examined with extreme care.

By turning wild creatures into commodities, financial incentives reinforced by market mechanisms are at risk of undermining the conservation prerogative which should form the foundation of this discussion.

Proponents of so-called sustainable utilisation in wildlife conservation often argue that wild animals have to “start paying for themselves” – an attitude that their critics find uncomfortably close to the dictum “if it pays, it stays”. The latter are particularly concerned about what happens “if it doesn’t pay”, wondering whether wild animals don’t, in fact, have an intrinsic right to inhabit their indigenous habitats without the risk of being sustainably exploited to extinction for the benefit of humans.

Given the fact that our over-exploitation of wildlife has been identified as one of the biggest, if not the biggest, causes of the current crisis in which many species may not make it to the end of this century, it is high time that we join the authors of the declaration to save the world's terrestrial megafauna by stating that we “affirm an abiding moral obligation to protect the Earth's megafauna” along with all other threatened plant and animal species.

Tell that to the poachers.

Jeff

quote:

The single biggest threat, however, is overexploitation, defined as “the harvesting of species from the wild at rates that cannot be compensated for by reproduction or regrowth”.

Seems that if these dumb assed PHDs would really study effective hunting, including specific hunting quotas, laws, regulations, seasons, etc. as found in countries that want to protect and have protected their fauna, that they might, just might, come to realize and understand that legitimate hunting is NOT overexploitation. We certainly would not want science and facts to get in the way of their unsubstantiated position and total emtionalism. And, to compare the unregulated hunting of species hundreds of years ago (which did result in some going extinct due to market hunting)to today's regulated hunting is just about as dishonest as you can get. What a crock of propaganda!

Get ready, these people are growing rapidly in number and their true agenda is to stop all hunting; period! Just like politicians that "Don't want to take away your hunting rifles." In those words, if their lips are moving, they're lying. Their new buzz word is "sport" hunting. "Killing for food is OK with many non-hunters but sport hunting should be outlawed." Elephant, Rhino and Lion are about marked off the Bucket List but as I've heard the anti-hunters claim, "We're going after the Leopard next." Nothing will stop these money grabbers from coming after our hunting, and positively, money is their true motive. It bothers me that in the USA alone we have a supposed 100 million gun owners yet how many said gun owners belong to the NRA? SCI, DSC? We're not united but by god these carrot eaters ARE UNITED! Best we start putting our money where our mouth is...or there won't be anything left to legally hunt...and when hunting stops, it's the end of wildlife as we know today. LDK

Pretty mealy mouthed.

Over exploitation is leading to issues with biodiversity. Truth.

Sustainable use, aka hunting is a form of natural resource use, aka "exploitation." Sort of truth. Use of loaded language, but somewhat logical.

Hunting is causing over exploitation. Straw man arguement. Not true. While it could be possible in the face of corruption that overly generous quotas could be dropping populations, it is the fault of the quota setting, which can be changed by the self same scientists.

What they don't want to admit is that human population increases are causing loss of habitat, especially if it makes no economic sense to preserve the wild areas...and short of intolerable government policies (euthanasia and forced birth control) there is not much they can do about the decrease in biodiversity. Hunting allows land to be protected from development while not having severe impact on animal populations as a whole (which photo safari does given the bigger footprint the masses of photo safari tourists require) so it in many ways is the only option open to saving wildlife and biodiversity as no country is able to dedicate enough land to wilderness to amount to much in the grand scheme of saving species.

An emotional arguement does not require any logic, and for all the left complains that the right is anti science (with some justification at times) this proves that they are much bigger hypocrites on science issues than any other group.

So convenient that they've lumped "hunting" into the "over-exploitation" bucket. There's no doubt that certain mega-fauna, as well as other species, are suffering from "over-exploitation" - which is better known as poaching. But legal, well-regulated hunting is not only "sustainable use", but as proven in North America and many parts of Southern Africa, it has been the greatest contributing factor for wildlife population restoration. What game species in NA is now on the verge of extinction? Which one in RSA or Namibia?

If the facts don't support the theory, then the facts must be ignored ....