Shooting for conservation

This is a subject that I have to say I have done a lot of research on. The concept that some animals are hunted to provide money for conservation is one that I see as having great potential only if managed right. So let's try and see the argument on both sides.

Firstly hunting can bring in a lot of money. Hunters are willing to pay great amounts for the opportunity to shoot animals. Not only that but usually there are other cash flows to it as well. For example a group of hunters that will go to shoot a lion will not just pay for a tag but also for a place to stay and a guide. Their stay there will also bring more money to the local communities and hence improve the lives of the local.

The money obtained from the hunting can be put into good use by tackling some of the conservation issues that come from the local community. For example instead of poaching, with legal hunting the local communities may make enough money from the hunters in order for them to stop poaching off the local wildlife. In addition to that problematic animals may be targeted for a hunt, which could make the life of the locals a lot easier and reduce the general hate for specific animals. For example targeting elephants that trample crops could bring in money for the locals as well as allowing for the crops to recover and the locals to make some money.

The problem however with this is that the money don't always end up in the right hands. Organizations dedicated for the protection of specific species may never end up seeing a penny of that money due to the fact that most hunting and trapping is regulated by governments. What is even worse is the fact that some of the money that might end up in local communities due to the hunters, may instead end up in the hands of corrupted governments. Although this does not happen in all the instances, corruption may be something that may or may not be present.

Apart from that, hunting for conservation is not applicable to all species. Many species that need conserving are not prized hunt trophies and hence is a strategy that cannot be maintained for all instances. Although people will pay hundreds of thousands to shoot a black rhinoceros,, very few if any will pay to shoot a red panda. This is often a mentality common enough among hunters. The larger, more elusive and dangerous an animal is then the more its worth to shoot. What is more, conservation is already hindered by the “value” that some animals have and “selling” endangered animal tags will only add to this misguided notion that everything in nature should be judged by value.

Last but not least, some endangered animals really cannot afford losing some members of their population. It may be that governments consider this but it may be that they don't. Even if the a population is viable after certain members have been hunted, biology is getting increasingly complex in regards to genetic,behavior and interactions. By killing off that one animal, the social cohesion of a group of animals may be damaged beyond repair. By killing another, territories may shift resulting to conflict and animals being removed from their territories. What is more several animals may genetically hold the key to a species survival and unknowingly have lost their lives to the idea of hunters hunting to gather money for conservation.

In my opinion hunting for conservation is not something that is easily applicable. It is a great idea in thought but should require proper scientific backing before being suggested. With biology gaining more and more levels of complexity, hunting even one of these animals that is endangered, can lead to irreversible mistakes that would properly not even be worth the money.