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.
