Should Big Game Hunting Be Legal

Trophy hunting contributes to taxidermy, which in turn is used to record species, including those that are extinct and threatened. It also serves to educate, especially young people, about animals and their parts. He fired the right barrel of his weapon, « the bullet passed through both lungs, » then with the left, « the bullet penetrated between his neck and shoulder and pierced his heart, » Roosevelt wrote. A third salvo from another member of the hunting group shot the large animal, « only thirteen paces from where we were standing, » Roosevelt said. Along with the decline in participation in hunting, Africa is rapidly urbanizing and industrializing. These trends are likely to reduce habitat threats from grazing and agricultural production and open up conservation opportunities that do not depend on the nature and extent of the economic incentives that trophy hunting currently provides. These trends will also lead to new threats to wildlife habitat, such as large-scale energy development and infrastructure expansion, for which trophy hunting is unlikely to increase the relevant opportunity cost. We live in an imperfect world. Should hunting be reformed? Absolute. Could it be better regulated? Probably. Should hunters take more responsibility for demanding ethical practices across the industry? Again, yes.

But will a ban on trophy hunting be good for wildlife at this point? Overall, I think the current answer is no. In fact, trophy hunting research shows that it can bring significant financial benefits, is likely to be supported by local communities, and can be linked to conservation gains. A ban on trophy hunting would provide a much-needed incentive to develop creative conservation concepts for wildlife conservation and human-animal coexistence. And there is still considerable conservation income that can be earned without resorting to trophy hunting. Trophy hunters themselves pay huge sums for what they do (IFAW estimates more than $US 100,000 for a 21-day big game hunting trip). However, reliable data on the economic benefits for the countries visited remain limited and controversial. This is a process where the hunting of an animal is sanctioned by the authorities in order to maintain and improve the pack. The story of the Texas millionaire who hunted a black rhino in Namibia is a great example of conservation hunting.

But despite the strong emotions it sometimes evokes, many people may not know how widespread trophy hunting is. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) reports that between 2004 and 2014, a total of 107 countries were involved in trophy hunting. It is estimated that more than 200,000 hunting trophies of endangered species were exchanged during this period (plus 1.7 million unthreatened animals). Our position has been met with skepticism by activists, media representatives and the public, who generally find trophy hunting abhorrent. This is to be expected given the heightened emotions that many feel at the sight of a dead animal considered rare or exotic. That such a scene could bring positive results for biodiversity conservation seems absurd; « In some limited and tightly controlled cases, including for endangered species, scientific evidence has shown that trophy hunting can be an effective conservation tool as part of a wide range of strategies, » WWF says on its website. The long-term effects of piecemeal bans like those on lion trophies remain to be seen, but they certainly appear to undermine habitat conservation efforts that are at the heart of global efforts to contain extinction. The economic viability of trophy hunting programs depends on their ability to capture a limited and regulated decline of high-value species such as lions. If this capacity were to be denied due to import bans in markets where most trophy hunters live, the researchers estimate that wildlife alone would no longer be an economically competitive land use on more than 14 million hectares of wilderness in Tanzania, Mozambique and Zambia. But wait! I hear you crying.

Why do hunters have to kill things? Why can`t we turn all these hunting grounds into ecotourism destinations? Why can`t phototourism finance the protection of these habitats? This idea sounds appealing, but the reality is that tour operators often struggle to attract customers away from popular tourist destinations like the Serengeti or the Maasai Mara. Animals may be too rare, biting flies too abundant or the view too discreet. Do you know someone who has gone on a photo safari in Chad or the Central African Republic? Trophy hunting is a hotly contested activity, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, which is full of wild animals. Some countries still technically allow trophy hunting, which is paid, although the use of these funds depends on the government concerned. In addition, a study published in 2016 found that if trophy hunting was removed from municipal reserves, 84% of those reserves would become financially insolvent. This bankruptcy would put an area five times the size of Yosemite National Park at increased risk of conversion to agriculture or development. A report released by the Democratic staff of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources (a committee of the United States Congress). In June 2016, the House of Representatives reported that hunting revenues in African countries such as Zimbabwe, Tanzania, South Africa and Namibia, from where most hunting trophies are imported into the United States, did not meet conservation needs.

Curiously, the « evidence » that has been cited that poaching is associated with trophy hunting is that it can occur in the same area as the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, which has undoubtedly suffered from severe poaching. However, recent data from South Africa`s Kruger National Park, one of Africa`s most popular photography tourist destinations, has shown that rhino numbers have dropped by 67 percent since 2011. Does this mean, « Where photo tourism is allowed, poaching follows? » Should photo tourism be banned, in Kruger or more broadly, especially since most African protected areas are well below their capacity due to threats such as poaching? What could happen to Africa`s biodiversity if campaigns to ban trophy hunting succeed is already underway in Kenya. Since big game hunting was banned in 1977, the country has experienced a deeply troubling decline in its native biodiversity, including many species considered common in other countries where trophy hunting is integrated into the conservation system. These declines coincided with an expansion of livestock grazing in rural areas of the country and growing political tensions between Kenyan wildlife authorities and rural communities due to the inability to resolve human-animal conflict and the lack of revenue sharing from photographic tourism. 7. Not all money benefits the country or its people: It is not always true that money paid for trophy hunting helps local people or the government. For example, Dr.

Palmer is a trophy hunter responsible for the killing of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe`s Hwange National Park in 2015.