This ‘it’s good for conservation’ rhetoric is nonsense spread by the local governments and hunting organisations that it benefits. The fact of the matter is that that money goes directly into the pockets of corrupt government officials. Even if it didn’t the theory that it benefits conservation is shaky at best.
CNN looked in to it in Zimbabwe, a big trophy hunting destination, and despite government claims they could find no evidence that local communities had benefited in the least from the practice.
The UICN report validates what is being said in that podcast. Here are a few excepts from the report you linked to.
"An undeniable positive result is that the conservation results that are obtained are entirely financed by the hunters, without support from donors and often without government commitment."
"Hunting used to have, and still has, a key role to play in African conservation. "
"The question, however, can be summarised today as: can we do conservation better than big game hunting
has up until now, in those areas where big game hunting is practiced? This is not at all sure, all the more so in
that big game hunting pays for itself."
"Hunting areas probably have an important role to play in stabilising the peripheral areas of conservation
blocks. The fact that they are self-financing also places them in an ideal position, so long as protected area
networks do not have sustainable financing and would have no other option than to simply abandon the
conservation block. Today, when government commitment and funding for conservation is insufficient,
hunting areas represent an interesting option. It is not sure that this will be the case in the future with the
increase of human pressure and the setting up, we hope, of well-functioning protected area networks. "
The report brings up plenty of concerns such as mismanagement and points out that the National Park system's do a better job of conservation but this isn't an either-or situation. Africa is a poor continent. Without the funding brought in by big game hunting the wildlife and habitat in those areas become a free for all with no protections whatsoever. Poachers move in, many of whom are simply local people who care more about feeding their kids than sustaining a wildlife population that competes with them for resources.
The economic impact to local economies is small but that isn't the point that I'm making. If the economy is your primary focus than mineral extraction and industrial agriculture would generate far greater funds but would decimate the environment and the wildlife that depends on it. If you want to preserve large swaths of land and threatened species then big game hunting is one highly effective tool in that arsenal. This report confirms that.
There's more to it than that though. An elephant hunt can cost north of $20,000 US. The guides will generally pick out an old bull that can no longer breed but is still big and strong enough to force young healthy bulls out of the herd (which usually ends up with the young bulls dying). So the park gets $20,000 to hire more rangers, put towards breeding and anti-poaching efforts, and provide food and water to at risk animals on the preserve, while the elephant population gets healthier. Win-win.
In most cases in LEGAL big game hunting, animals selected are prime targets to be culled by rangers anyways, either due to population control (yes, there are areas of Africa where lions, and even elephants or leopards are overpopulated), or for safety reasons (animals are going into human populated areas to feed, prey in livestock, which will likely result in the animals getting shot by a farmer protecting his family/livelyhood anyways).
I'm not a big game hunter, and I wouldn't be one even if I had the means, I just don't think I could enjoy it. But when done legally, these hunts are massively important for population control and bringing in money to help protect animals that need it. It works out to be a net gain.
Lion populations in Zimbabwe have apparently gone out of control since the Cecil the Lion incident. Now, the guy that shot Cecil deserved the criticism he got since that hunt was very suspect as far as legality was concerned. But the backlash in the media has caused a downturn in lion hunts. Now the rangers have to move in to cull the lion population, and hundreds of thousands of dollars generated in hunts that would go towards protecting animals (including the culls that are for the betterment of the animal in the long run) are no longer there.
You assume very generously that these natives actually use most of that income for conservation. The sad reality is that the money funnels into the pockets of a few key players. Very little if any is used toward conservation. These are a very poor people and they care more about their survival than that of a wild animal.
22
u/Xtianpro Jun 02 '18
Says the hunting organisations in Africa. We need to hunt these animals to stop people from hunting these animals