Hunting for "Conservation" Backfires

Got some old "Shikaar" tales to share? Found a great new spot to Fish? Any interesting camping experiences? Discussion of Back-packing, Bicycling, Boating, National Parks, Wildlife, Outdoor Cooking & Recipes etc.
Forum rules
PLEASE NOTE: There is currently a complete ban on Hunting/ Shikar in India. IFG DOES NOT ALLOW any posts of an illegal nature, and anyone making such posts will face immediate disciplinary measures.
Post Reply
srswamy
On the way to nirvana
On the way to nirvana
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:50 pm
Location: Hyderabad

Hunting for "Conservation" Backfires

Post by srswamy » Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:58 pm

An interesting summary:

Study by: Team of Biologists, University of Minnesota.
Declaration of interest: None

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... fires.html
African lions are one step away from becoming an endangered species, and a measure designed to preserve them is to blame. A new study suggests that hunters who pay to shoot the animals are killing too many of the big cats.

Seventy years ago, the kings of the jungle numbered 450,000. Now the lion population has dwindled to less than a tenth of that. In the 1980s and 1990s, African nations started to think an old practice might hold the solution to saving the lion: trophy hunting. They hoped that by allowing rich game-chasers to shoot a few animals, landowners would have an incentive to conserve lion habitats and keep the species alive while boosting their local economies. In the meantime, it became conventional wisdom to blame the decline on factors such as conversion of lion habitat for agriculture, disease, and killings by locals upset over lion attacks on people or livestock. But the newest research, to be published in an upcoming issue of Conservation Biology, shows that at least in Tanzania—home to more lions than any other country—that isn’t the case.

Led by Craig Packer of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, a team of biologists took a closer look at the diminishing lion populations in Tanzania over the last decade. The researchers analyzed the amount of game brought back by hunters from 21-day safaris, the only legal way to hunt lions in the East African nation. They discovered that from 1996 to 2008, the number of lions hunters bagged in Tanzania decreased by half. It’s not that hunters are scarce: Sales of the wilderness treks have risen by 60% since 1998. And the hunters probably aren’t deliberately shooting fewer animals either, according to geographer Brian Child of the University of Florida, Gainesville, who was not part of the study. “In general, if they’re paying a lot of money, they’re going to be hunting as hard as they can,” Child says.

This leaves only one reason the hunters are bringing in less game: There’s less game out there to shoot.

Packer’s team looked at several explanations for the decline. Expanding agriculture, disease, and retaliatory killings might all play a role, but those threats paled in comparison to recreational hunting, according to the team’s analysis. Shooting for sport was responsible for 92% of hunters’ reduced success.

“I would not have guessed that 92% of the population trend would be explained by trophy hunting, and these other factors would be so weak,” says Scott Creel, an ecologist at Montana State University, Bozeman, who was also not part of Packer’s team.

The numbers are falling in areas where hunting is banned as well. Populations decreased in three out of five protected areas analyzed, including two national parks. Although the reduction in one region (Ngorongoro Conservation Area) could be chalked up to an epidemic and some unfortunate confrontations with herders, those problems also existed in the few areas that saw their lion numbers rise or stay the same. That rules out sickness or retaliatory killing as reasons for the downward trend. According to Packer, trophy hunting can even harm lions that live in places where it’s forbidden, because lions don’t stay put. “These parks are not fenced, and so the lions can pass freely inside and outside the park,” he says. “And if they are outside the park during hunting season, they may be shot.”

Packer suspects that hunters have been overexploiting the lions. Although he acknowledges that the idea of hunting for conservation may work in theory, “there’s no point in providing the animal with economic value and then over-hunting them.”

“But there’s a silver lining here, which is that trophy hunting is something we control very directly. … We can decide how many we’re going to shoot,” Creel says. On the other hand, “telling people who live in poverty that they can’t convert their land to agriculture, that’s suddenly a very difficult thing to accomplish.”

Tanzania allows trophy hunters to shoot only male lions that are at least 6 years old. Theoretically, this is better for the species as a whole than shooting lionesses, but Packer and Child agree that even killing just the adult males poses a serious threat. The country tries to cap the number of yearly kills at 500 in a 300,000-square-kilometer range. Packer thinks even a third of that is dangerous.

However, eliminating the hunt entirely could be even more dangerous. "If you make hunting too difficult, then people are going to switch back to cattle,” says Child. “And then you’ll have no wildlife.”
At times, I stay silent. When I don't speak, it doesn't mean I don't have anything to say and running out of words. It only means that I have better things to do.

For Advertising mail webmaster
User avatar
OverUnderPump
Shooting true
Shooting true
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Bangalore, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Hunting for "Conservation" Backfires

Post by OverUnderPump » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:27 pm

“But there’s a silver lining here, which is that trophy hunting is something we control very directly. … We can decide how many we’re going to shoot,” Creel says. On the other hand, “telling people who live in poverty that they can’t convert their land to agriculture, that’s suddenly a very difficult thing to accomplish.”
However, eliminating the hunt entirely could be even more dangerous. "If you make hunting too difficult, then people are going to switch back to cattle,” says Child. “And then you’ll have no wildlife.”
The author outlines the solution in his own article twice. So much for the study.

regards
8)
OUP
The universe was born with a BIG BANG, no wonder guns run in my blood.

Disclaimer: My post is either a question or a reply to one. I am stating an opinion. If my opinion differs from yours, It's not intended as an insult.

srswamy
On the way to nirvana
On the way to nirvana
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:50 pm
Location: Hyderabad

Re: Hunting for "Conservation" Backfires

Post by srswamy » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:35 pm

OUP,
"If you make hunting too difficult, then people are going to switch back to cattle,” says Child. “And then you’ll have no wildlife."
By the way, can you kindly explain what does this line mean, especially "switching back to cattle"?
But there’s a silver lining here, which is that trophy hunting is something we control very directly. … We can decide how many we’re going to shoot,” Creel says. On the other hand, “telling people who live in poverty that they can’t convert their land to agriculture, that’s suddenly a very difficult thing to accomplish.
This point is still an open issue, not a solution altogether :)

--edit--

The main point to be noted is
The country tries to cap the number of yearly kills at 500 in a 300,000-square-kilometer range. Packer thinks even a third of that is dangerous.
Are we absolutely sure of the basis of this number? I re-iterate, population control is not the answer. Nothing except financial motive can be behind such decision.
At times, I stay silent. When I don't speak, it doesn't mean I don't have anything to say and running out of words. It only means that I have better things to do.

User avatar
OverUnderPump
Shooting true
Shooting true
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Bangalore, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Hunting for "Conservation" Backfires

Post by OverUnderPump » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:48 pm

srswamy wrote:OUP,
By the way, can you kindly explain what does this line mean, especially "switching back to cattle"?
It means switching to 'Cattle Farming' in place of wildlife tourism, which would further deplete the environment.

As far as such studies go, I would take the published numbers with a few pinches of salt.
Lets look at it this way, Africa has allowed hunting for several decades now, and the state of fauna is much better there as compared to a country like India where despite a hunting ban, the numbers for apex predators like the lion or the tiger are miserably low. So, I guess the African model did work better than ours.

regards
8)
OUP
The universe was born with a BIG BANG, no wonder guns run in my blood.

Disclaimer: My post is either a question or a reply to one. I am stating an opinion. If my opinion differs from yours, It's not intended as an insult.

User avatar
Vikram
We post a lot
We post a lot
Posts: 5109
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:14 am
Location: Tbilisi,Georgia

Re: Hunting for "Conservation" Backfires

Post by Vikram » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:15 pm

Financial motive,SwameeJi? Congratulations for telling us what we did not know all the while.Without that all these successful conservation/wildlife management programmes would not have been possible. Wildlife conservation to be devoid of any monetary motives is ideal but to expect that to happen is impractical.Who is going to pay for it? You or the starving poor man and his family? Yes, the world runs on money,unfortunately,and it's not going to change in our lifetime.

Louis Theroux is a noted journalist and he tries to explore the world of African Hunting in this programme.You can watch the whole of it on Youtube. I pick the clipping that sums up our debate.

[youtube][/youtube]

Those Giant Sables that Piete Warren breeds were almost poached(not hunted by paying trophy hunters) to extinction and that man is the one who almost single handedly brought them back to thriving.Without a financial motive that would not have been possible. Piete Warren has done much more to wildlife conservation than the likes of ,I dare say,many animal rights people who shout the loudest but do little else.There are now sustainable herds of these sables in Mozambique.Piete Warren makes money out of these animals.But, he also loves them.Loves the concept of keeping them alive.Not just because they mean money,but because he knows that it's the only way in the world he lives in.

Image
What you see above is an example of how bad things are in Zimbabwe.People starving and even supermarkets empty because very few could afford to buy stuff.Poaching for food is at an all time high.Still there are pockets of wilderness where wildlife thrives.Herds of elephants that need to be culled.How?Because of the money poured in by the legal hunters from foreign countries. Many farms that otherwise would have disintegrated are thriving game farms that keep wildlife alive.

Can hunting be stopped completely? It has never been and it will never be stopped.Killing animals for food or sport has always been part of every human society.How controlled and how humane is the question.Are there issues associated with legal trophy hunting?Certainly yes.How we learn to address them is critical.Not abandoning the idea altogether is not an option for all the reasons mentioned above.

You have difficulty in accepting taking an animal's life and most of your, and many like you, arguments stem from this standpoint.Well, not going to happen, I am afraid. Animals do not have human rights.Period! And I do not like to even step on a slug while walking. I simply do not like anyone hurting an animal or kill a creature needlessly.Once you accept the idea of giving up a few lives to save the majority, legal hunting stops offending you so much.

Legal hunters who love wilderness and contribute so much for it's conservation are not your/our problem.Your so called march of civilisation,market poaching and trade in exotic animal products are the most threatening factors.Go after them,if you can. We are allies and believe in the same cause.Our methods may differ.

Please do post as many articles that point out the shortcomings of legal hunting as you like. We can learn from it.But,please do spare us the holier than thou attitude.Is that too much to ask?

Best-
Vikram

-- Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:46 am --
OverUnderPump wrote:
srswamy wrote:OUP,
By the way, can you kindly explain what does this line mean, especially "switching back to cattle"?
It means switching to 'Cattle Farming' in place of wildlife tourism, which would further deplete the environment.

As far as such studies go, I would take the published numbers with a few pinches of salt.
Lets look at it this way, Africa has allowed hunting for several decades now, and the state of fauna is much better there as compared to a country like India where despite a hunting ban, the numbers for apex predators like the lion or the tiger are miserably low. So, I guess the African model did work better than ours.

regards
8)
OUP
:clap:
It ain’t over ’til it’s over! "Rocky,Rocky,Rocky....."

Post Reply