From the rolling savannahs of Africa to the rugged forests of North America, and the back benches of British Parliament a contentious battle rages on. It’s a battle for the survival of wildlife, and at its heart lies the controversial practice of hunting for conservation. Is it a saviour of endangered species or a masked threat to biodiversity? In this article, we delve into the pros and cons of this divisive issue and explore its impact on our planet’s delicate ecosystems.
Please be warned: This article contains photos that are not advised for those of a sensitive nature.
A Noble Cause or a Contradiction in Terms?
Hunting, long perceived as a sport of leisure for the affluent, has found itself being cast in a new light – as a tool for conservation. Advocates argue that regulated hunting can fund wildlife conservation efforts, deter poaching, and manage wildlife populations. But does it truly serve this noble cause?
Those who promote hunting point mainly to its ability to attract funding for conservation. Permit fees, hunting licences and trophy fees, as well as the related costs such as accommodation, food, and transport, can be significant incentives for landowners to engage in habitat preservation, anti-poaching initiatives, and research and breeding programs. There are, added to this, extra benefits that arise from hunting as it provides jobs that otherwise wouldn’t exist and enriches local populations that otherwise might have turned to poaching.
Perhaps the boldest claim by hunters is that due to the fact that animals have been penned into limited spaces, management of these spaces is essential to ensure continued viability for animal species and the population control provided by hunting, takes the place of predators, and is an important aspect of that management.
Effective population management
In an article on GoHunt.com Josh Kirchner argues that it is humanity’s past indiscretions which make hunting a necessity.
“The fact of that matter is that we, as a species, have made a significant impact on the natural world through our time here. We’ve, in a way, put a stain on the landscape and disturbed the natural flow of things. There are far less wildlands than there used to be, which means there are less areas for critters to call home. This means that we need wildlife management — a way to keep populations in good healthy conditions within these more confined habitats they call home,” explains Kirchner.
The question then is why would it not be easier to simply let natural predators manage the numbers of species instead. Kirchner says he believes this no longer works either.
“Predator numbers need to be managed, too. If there are too many predators, it will have a negative impact on the herds and, then, turn into a negative impact on the predators. With too little, we run into another imbalance because fewer animals are being taken by predators. It’s all about striking a balance between the two. Whether one is talking about managing predator numbers or deer numbers, it all falls into the same bowl” he explains.
The counter-argument
Those arguing against this position state it is simply not true, and that these arguments are underpinned by faulty beliefs and economics.
A study conducted by Christophe Bonenfant, in 2011 found that hunters can in no way be equated with natural predators in an environment and do not help maintain natural balance in restricted areas. In fact, Bonenfant argues, “trophy hunting constitutes a greater menace to threatened species than previously realized. Because humans value rarity, targeted species that are threatened are likely to be disproportionately hunted, thereby becoming even more vulnerable, which could eventually push them to extinction.”
He adds that while predators are known to take sick, old, or already dying members of herds, hunters do quite the opposite, and pride themselves on killing the largest, and strongest as well as those that exhibit the most extreme versions of traits such as longest tusks, or horns.
“Removing particular animals on the basis of specified individual traits may have a disproportionate impact on the behaviour of remaining animals in the group, and its genetic integrity,” he explains.
While he was generally pro-hunting, a study conducted in 2018 by Professor Melville Saayman and others, found that in 2015 and 2016 the total estimated combined revenue earned from hunting elephant, giraffe, lion, white rhino and leopard amounted to roughly R12-million – a drop in the ocean when compared with the total tourism contribution to the economy of $22.1-billion in 2019.
Damning report
In a report for Good Governance Africa (GGA), Dr Ross Harvey referred to the Saayman study and concluded that this amount was far too small a number to justify hunting as a conservation methodology and argued that in fact, hunting “also undermines tourism potential, which strengthens the argument for the abandonment of the practice”. His argument was simply that the tourism attraction of an elephant over time is a far greater financial reward than its one-off killing by a hunter.
“Given that trophy hunting is an obvious form of direct exploitation that undermines ecosystem functionality and is hardly a requirement for human survival, its continuation should be plainly understood as a likely hindrance to conservation,” Harvey said. “In short, it is extremely challenging to sustain an economic argument in favour of trophy hunting in South Africa as a key conservation tool.”
Harvey further argued that far from encouraging landowners to develop new land for conservation, hunting was quite often being done alongside tourism on the same farms such as Timbavati, Umbabat, Balule and Klaserie.
“It appears that many ranches are farming the wild rather than wilding the farm and potentially perpetuating land ownership inequality under the guise of South Africa’s conservation success story”, concluded Harvey.
Canned Lion Hunting: A Stain on Conservation Efforts
Perhaps the most egregious example of hunting as a profit-taking mechanism can be found in the “canned lion hunting industry”. Predominantly found in South Africa, it has garnered international condemnation for its dubious conservation claims. It is viewed by many as a gruesome example of exploitation under the guise of conservation.
The economics of canned lion hunting are stark. Lion cubs, often separated from their mothers at a young age, are hand-reared and ultimately sold for hunting. Tourists pay significant sums for the opportunity to shoot a captive lion in a confined space. This practice not only undermines the ethics of conservation but also has potentially dire consequences for the broader lion population.
Critics argue that canned lion hunting has no place in genuine conservation efforts. Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of cruelty, damages the reputation of ethical hunting, and tarnishes the image of conservation as a whole. Looked at in its most extreme form, canned hunting also casts a line over the ethics of hunting, and whether cruelty as a tourist attraction can be justified.
The debate over hunting for conservation remains complex and emotionally charged. While proponents assert that it can serve as a critical funding mechanism and population control tool, critics highlight ethical and ecological concerns, particularly in the context of practices like canned lion hunting. Striking a balance between preserving our planet’s biodiversity and respecting the ethical treatment of animals remains a formidable challenge. As the battle between conservation and hunting rages on, one thing is certain – the fate of countless species and ecosystems hangs in the balance.
