Posted on 11/20/2017 3:59:15 AM PST by marktwain
Originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 7, 2015.
An American hunter’s killing of a beloved lion named Cecil in Zimbabwe last month was enough to fuel widespread outrage. But the details of the hunt are even more damning: The lion was allegedly lured out of a national park and then killed illegally.
Unfortunately, this one sorry episode is tarnishing the role that well-managed, legal hunting can play in promoting wildlife conservation. Cecil’s death has inspired passionate calls to ban trophy hunting throughout Africa. Three U.S. airlines have announced that they will no longer transport lions and other big-game African animals killed by trophy hunters.
Not surprisingly, politicians have jumped on the bandwagon. Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) introduced legislation last week that would ban the import or export of animals being proposed for inclusion under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
Last October the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the African lion as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but the agency has yet to complete the listing. Mr. Menendez’s bill would effectively end the trophy hunting of lions by Americans.
But would restricting trophy hunts really save the king of beasts? Not according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Lions are not in trouble because of responsible sport hunting,” wrote director Dan Ashe after the agency concluded its listing review of the species. “In fact, evidence shows that scientifically sound conservation programs that include limited, well-managed sport hunting can and do contribute to the long-term survival of the species.” The agency determined that the major threats to lions are habitat destruction, declines in the species they prey on, and increased conflicts between humans and lions.
Banning trophy hunting or restricting trophy imports wouldn’t address these challenges. In fact, it could do more to endanger wildlife than save it. Consider what happened in Kenya after it banned all hunting in 1977. Since then, Kenya’s populations of large wild animals have declined 60%-70%, according to wildlife economist Mike Norton-Griffiths. Kenya’s lion populations have fallen to 2,000 from 20,000 a half century ago. Hunting bans in Tanzania and Zambia have produced similar results.
Trophy hunting is one of the main ways local people reap benefits from living in regions with large wildlife. Across Africa, hunting generates more than $200 million in revenue each year, mostly in southern Africa, according to a study in Biological Conservation. A 2012 study in PLOS One, an open-source, peer-reviewed science journal, noted that eliminating revenues from lion hunting could “reduce tolerance for the species among communities where local people benefit from trophy hunting, and may reduce funds available for anti-poaching.”
For Africans who lose crops, livestock and even human lives to dangerous species such as lions, wildlife is often seen as a liability to be avoided or killed rather than an asset to be protected. “Why are the Americans more concerned than us?” one Zimbabwean told Reuters, commenting on the furor over Cecil’s death. “We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants.”
Citing research by the University of Chicago’s Field Museum and the Kenya Wildlife Service, the New Scientist reported that, on average, in Kenya each lion eats $270 worth of livestock annually. Such losses are catastrophic in a country where per capita income is $1,200. Herders would rather kill lions than conserve them.
Andrew Loveridge, the Oxford researcher who collared and studied Cecil, acknowledges the benefits of big-game hunting. “Hunting, as much as people might detest it, does have a role in conservation,” he told the BBC last week, noting that more land is protected as hunting reserves in Africa than as national parks. “If there was no hunting, what would happen with that land?”
Hunting also provides much-needed funding for Africa’s protected areas. Consider the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, responsible for managing the Hwange National Park, where Cecil lived. Panthera, the conservation group, notes that this wildlife agency derives the majority of its funding from trophy hunting. If this revenue goes away, so does the agency’s ability to adequately safeguard wildlife populations from poachers and other illegal hunters.
Lion conservation succeeds when it provides incentives for local people to protect lions and their habitat. In other words, if it pays, it stays. When done responsibly and legally, trophy hunting is a way to ensure African lions are here to stay.
There was a study I believe by the Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation which found around 3 percent of hunting revenues went back into conservation. If countries can prove that their populations are being maintained sustainably there are exemptions already available that allow for trophy hunting under the Endangered Species Act.
I don't know about the "track record" you speak of. I suppose we would have to develop some time lines and investigate it, with regards to the wolf population. We have certainly evolved and gotten smarter over the decades about managing wildlife. But there are some things to consider with regards to preservation of certain species.
The predatory wildlife in the USA is certainly making an aggressive come back. If the wolf population were to thrive in the south, they could certainly help with the destructive feral hogs and such. But they would also, or maybe more likely, kill the easier prey that is penned up, slower and more nutritious for them. They would likely also kill cattle. It wouldn't be long before there would be a cry to "cull the wolf packs" and the cycle would start again.
As others have said, many places have an overpopulation of deer. In most of the USA, deer do not have natural predators. When they overpopulate, they starve, get sick and spread disease through the herds. With natural predators, the weak and diseased would get eaten. The only problem is, predators are lazy creatures too. They eat the easiest meal to catch. If two or three wolves are considering a deer or a cow for dinner, it might not take them long to figure out that the domesticated cow is like room service compared to chasing down a deer.
It's a complicated balance, IMO. The real nature lovers work hard at finding the right balance. The do good planet loving human hating liberals make a career out of complaining and crying about hatred and evil without regards to reality or consequences.
This would apply to Africa too. Face it we are hypocrites. Predators for thee but for me.
While most hunters understand and utilize the concept properly there are also a clique that could care less about conservation if they get their "trophy".
You may have meant "population", although WRT whitetail deer "pollution" makes a certain amount of ironic sense. I'd rather the excess deer be killed with a Winchester than with a Ford ... the former method does less damage to human life and property.
If you wanna' help protect lions then train, equip, and directly fund the anti-poacher patrols rather than filtering all aid through a corrupt system. After a few tourist hunters are shot and killed, the pool of potential hunters will be greatly reduced. In fact, with increased risk, in areas where it's difficult to escape with your trophy the pool of potential hunters will fall to zero.
JMHo
LOL! Post of the day......
Unfortunately it is true that birth control methods have yet proved effective in controlling populations of wild, free-ranging deer. But that is the best case long term scenario. And experimental efforts are still in a very early research stage.
I don't agree. Best case long term scenario is more folks get off their butts and go hunting.
People hunt all over the place here but the deer have started to congregate in places where it is no hunting...like my neighborhood which is adjacent to the National Forest. we are overrun with deer.
Cows come in herds. A herd of cattle is a dangerous entity to a wolf. Even domestic cows will kill a wolf.
Then they said you could apply for a doe tag but they were limited.
Then anyone could get a doe tag along with a buck tag.
Now you can get a buck tag for rife, one for bow, one for black powder as well as a doe tag for each of those venues (I think....).
With that being said, this year they said that all deer shot in Michigan had to be tested for chronic wasting disease........
I don't think I am disagreeing with your overly simplistic "we are hypocrites" argument when considering the whole history of humanity. I guess we are. But your standard of hypocrisy can be applied to most human endeavors, in that case, and often is applied by liberals to make their political points.
We are hypocrites because we would rather send food and water to 3rd world countries than help them build a power power plant and water treatment plants and aqueducts. We don't want them polluting the erf.
We would rather ban DDT at the expense of 3rd world poor people who die in large numbers from malaria in order to protect them from diseased fish that has never been proven. So many preventable deaths occur so 1st world citizens can feel good about protecting the environment. Yea, we are hypocrites.
But.....
Butttttttttt........................
It’s all about MY FEEELINGS!!!!!!!!!!
It simply isn’t a long term solution. When part of the population is removed, especially males, new animals migrate in, or the remaining numbers rebound due to food abundance.
That's why we shoot (and eat) does as well as bucks.
Oh, yea! Like the buffalo herds in Yellow Stone. That must be why wolves don't eat the buffalo, they fight back.
(I do get your point. Cattle in herds may not be "an easy" kill as I supposed when compared to wild boar. It's a fair point. Chickens and goats on the other hand....) ;o)
Sheep. The sheep farmer down the road eventually gave up. Coyotes and even dogs were wiping him out.
Thank you for posting this article. So-called “do gooders” would rather see a species become extinct than endorse hunting, just so they can feel good about themselves. They cannot make the connection to the consequences.
I come from a family that is a mix of hunters and wackos. The wacks argument is tiresome and is based entirely on emotion and a polyanna view that somehow these poor nations can maintain the herds on there own with little revenue.
The hunting side is based entirely on fact, reality and economics.
But that’s the way it is with lib-wackos on just about any topic du jour.
Trump is right about the elephants and the trophy hunters.
It is a horror show. I doubt he will reverse the ban and thank God he made an informed decision on the murder of such magnificent creatures for their ivory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.