Zimbabwe Wild Dogs

Conservation of endangered wild dogs

Support WildlifeDirect:
buy branded merchandise

Hunting - a brief comment

Category: Uncategorized | Date: Aug 24 2008 | By: zimbabwewilddogs

Hi all,

As a response to some comments on my last post, I thought it worth a brief post on the very controversial issue of hunting.  I’m not a hunter, I cannot for the life of me see why people would want to kill wild animals for sport and I will never understand what pleasure there is in looking at a stuffed head of a wild animal on your wall.  Having said that, as a general rule, I am pro hunting.  This is for the very simple reason that it brings in a lot of money which is used to conserve wildlife.  It is a great shame that people do not pay the same amount of money to simply watch wildlife and take photos as they do to shoot it, but nonetheless, that’s a fact.  And while it remains a fact, hunting is often one of the only ways wildlife can pay for itself.  And sadly, in this world that is driven by economics, wildlife does have to pay for itself.

Zimbabwe is actually a good case in point.  Due the political and economic situation in the country, ‘normal’ tourists are simply no longer coming here.  This means that there is very little money coming in from tourism, and wildlife would no longer be a viable land use option for any private ranches or conservancies, unless they were able to make money from hunting.  In the Save Valley Conservancy, many of the ranches would rather not be hunting, but in the current climate, they simply cant survive any other way.

Another example would be in Kenya, where I used to work. Hunting was banned in Kenya in 1977 and since then, over 70% of Kenya’s wildlife has gone extinct. Now obviously there are various reasons for this, but one of the main reasons is that private land owners who used to conserve wildlife because they could earn money from hunting, had to convert to cattle faming because there was no longer any money to be made from wildlife.

Now, there have undoubtedly been entire theses written on the pros and cons of hunting, and it is by no means a simple issue. There are good, logical, fact-based arguments both for and against hunting and there are plenty of very emotional viewpoints too (also both for and against).

What I try to do is separate my personal (emotional) feeling about the actual act of hunting from the more objective view of hunting overall - which is that, like it or not - it’s usually important for conservation.

Rosemary

7 Responses to “Hunting - a brief comment”

endingcharcoal, on 24 Aug 2008

Well said, Rosemary. I can’t add a thing to what you said. Hopefully, those who hunt for “sport” will eventually replace that mindset with compassion. There was a day when we needed to hunt wild animals for food (those of us in the western world) but those days are long gone for most. Anyone who can afford to go to Africa to hunt game is a long way from being a subsistence hunter. Like you, I appreciate that some hunters help preserve habitat, but it’s sad that their motivation is really about preserving the opportunity to enjoy the “thrill to kill”. And, yes, I have hunted — and killed deer, but I now get my thrills from trying to protect wildlife — and not just so I can kill it at a later date

Paul, on 25 Aug 2008

Great topic for discussion. It is sad when killing wildlife might be a way to save them, but I like that you see the big picture. I agree that hunting is deplorable, but as far as having an impact on wildlife, there are probably bigger issues that should be a priority.

zimbabwewilddogs, on 25 Aug 2008

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your comment. Yes, wildlife (at least in the area of Zim I work in) is at far greater risk from poaching, disease and habitat depletion.
Hunters will never let wildlife populations decline below a sustainable level, because that’s not good for business! All ranches in the Save Conservancy do extremely active anti-poaching which saves far more wildlife than they will hunt.
Rosemary

Maina, on 25 Aug 2008

This is my personal view - being a Kenyan and all - and it should not be seen to represent anyone but myself. Most of the times, people blame Kenya’s ban on sport hunting for the woes that befell the country’s wildlife, but I do not particularly see how that really worked. I believe that the decline of wildlife in Kenya is due to habitat loss driven by an expanding, largely agricultural, economy as well as rapid population growth. To add murk to an already messy situation, corruption among protectors of wildlife became rife. The contribution made by conversion from wildlife ranches to cattle ranching could not have been that significant (I must admit that I do not at the moment have the figures). Needless to say I am anti-hunting and not from an emotional point but from my belief that in a country like Kenya (and most other African states) where poaching has not been effectively controlled, “legal” hunting would complicate wildlife management by encouraging growth of markets especially for game meat (hunters do not consume the meat so it has to be sold in restaurants or to local people) which will result in massive poaching and annihilation of our wildlife resource.

That said, I still agree with Rosemary that the debate over whether to hunt or not to hunt is not about to end. My only hope is that there will still be wildlife when we decide which side was right. Because for whatever reason, wildlife is important. All species are in this planet for a reason and all species have their place in maintaining ecosystem balance.

Meanwhile, I will take that which I think is a precautionary approach - no hunting.

Vincent von Frese, on 03 Sep 2008

The objective view you have taken is what we have in the U.S.A. however with license fees and controlled hunting areas there is still a huge amount of poaching. It appears to me that the ‘Myth’ of being a ‘Great White Hunter’ has to be destroyed first before trophy and sport hunting were to end before the inevitable extinction in the not too distant future. The civilization of native Africans by religious groups and local governments have added to the overpopulation of people who have lost their ability to live in harmony with the great animal populations.
The fact that hunters in African game parks provide revenue to operate is only temporary and subject to the state of current politics. Looks like the only real defensive line is the dedicated and heroic individuals and wealthy donors. An offensive line is a possible solution to the problem. Management and money. Since when a war starts no one comes to a safari there should be a stock investment based financial management plan to keep the park management and safari personnel stable. The Eco-tourist and hunter has the bucks so you have to get investment managers to time share or something so that the customer’s Safari’s are pre-paid. The U.S. has been basking in the multi-billion dollar exotic bird and reptile business which is out of control. The more exotic the animal the more people want it and it comes fro Africa and the rest of the world. No revenue out of these profits are returned to Africa. South Florida has a huge population of wild pythons that pet buyers have released. Like the drug world live animal poaching manages to continue but many of the animals taken end up dead. Local poachers operate like gun salesmen and will do anything for a buck but they should be paid more money to expose these animal thieves.

Vincent von Frese, on 03 Sep 2008

After years of weapon firing in the military I actually missed the smell of gun powder and oil. So I can in one way understand the ‘hunter’s’ thrill. But my thesis is that there are no more or rather very few ‘Hunters’. Also poachers are snipers and assassins who get paid by businessmen. Hunt & shooting safaris are simply people who pay for entertainment by the providers of the myth of ‘The Great White Hunter’. This myth must be killed. Managed hunting is all we have left. In America sport hunting is a billion dollar business through licensing and permit fees. Why can’t the governments of Africa get these fees as well and the hunters and Eco tourists should pay as well because film, photos, anything of advertising value gotten from the wildlife in African countries should not be free. The animals are true celebrities and celebrities don’t work for free! (see Clint Eastwood’s ‘White Hunter Black Heart’ about the filming of ‘The African Queen”.

John Hunt, on 01 Dec 2008

1. Hunters will go where ecotourists won’t. This often provides local revenue (and gives the animals some value) in remote areas. Wild animals would be quickly removed from areas if they themselves weren’t of value as the browse (grass) would be better served on cattle.
2. You can’t hunt in African Parks, it is illegal.
3. No one will pay $25,000 to take a photo of a lion, or elephant
4. There are many more animals in southern africa today then even 100 years ago. Thanks to ranchers, tribes and others providing habitat. Habitat that they can only afford to provide because hunters come in a pay to shoot a few animals.
5. While some simply do not like that fact that people enjoy the challenge of hunting anywhere in the world. The fact is most hunters are avid conservationists. They do more to protect habitat, to ensure the species survival then virtually any other group.
6. Hunters are not poachers. There is a difference. Poachers take animals because they are hungry (and in Africa many people are) or because they are paid for the animal or some part of it (such as the Rhino horn). The problem with poaching is that it is uncontrolled. There is no sustainability in it, just short term satisfaction.
7. Hunting in Africa is very strictly controlled by a permit system. In fact I would argue that it is more controlled then deer hunting is in the US.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply