Trophy Hunting

[Lisbeth]

Opinion: Why trophy hunting is counter-productive as a ‘conservation tool’ and the opposite opinion

Posted on 24 December, 2018 by Guest Blogger in Hunting, Opinion Editorial, Wildlife and the Opinion Editorial post series.



Opinion post by Pragmatic Alternative to Trophy Hunting Facebook group

When left to nature, the delicate balance of wild ecosystems ensures survival of the fittest, as long as national parks and reserves – set aside for wildlife – are protected and connected via safe migration corridors. Predators help to maintain the healthy balance of wild ecosystems by killing only the slowest, weakest individuals.

Trophy hunters target the largest or rarest animals they can find – or those with the biggest horns, tusks or manes. Yet both science and common sense tells us that that goes against nature’s law of survival of the fittest. The reason dominant males survive to grow to be the largest and fittest individual is due to strong genes that have been passed down to them through natural selection – achieved through males fighting to decide dominance and ensure the strongest genes are passed on.

In the wild, when natural, favourable occurrences cause overpopulation, natural processes work to stabilise that population. Starvation and disease are nature’s ways of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive so that the strongest genes are passed on to future generations. When migration corridors are blocked and natural dispersal is prevented overpopulation will result – this is not however a natural occurrence. It’s vital that safe migration corridors are kept open to allow natural dispersal and avoid overpopulation of species.

It’s claimed that trophy hunting is a good conservation tool, but after many decades trophy hunting has done nothing to solve the causes of poaching in Africa. This is one of the main reasons the KAZA Trans Frontier Conservation Area is not functioning as intended. Often, trophy hunting concessions block ancient wildlife migration corridors, and poaching is uncontrolled even in the countries where trophy hunting goes on – making safe dispersal across the KAZA TFCA dangerous for elephants – which is why so many have been taking refuge in the relative safety of Botswana.

Yet organisations such as WWF and Peace Parks – founders of KAZA – support trophy hunting as a ‘useful conservation tool’ when in fact it causes more problems than it solves. According to the World Wildlife Fund’s 2018 report, global wildlife population shrank by 60% between 1970 and 2014! Trophy hunting has been going on for decades but has not helped to stop poaching inside the National Parks of Africa. It doesn’t help to solve the causes of poaching, and yet strong gene pools are depleted when trophy hunters target the biggest specimens from the ever dwindling populations of wildlife. This goes to show that a new way of protecting wildlife is urgently needed – rather than continuing to rely on trophy hunting as a conservation tool.

Where the boundaries of National Parks are surrounded by hunting concessions, individuals from the communities, living in the area, are employed seasonally by the hunting industry, and ‘game meat’ is distributed to poor communities during the hunting season. But those communities are not lifted out of the poverty trap – and encouraging demand for ‘bushmeat’ leads to more poaching – not less – inside the National Parks.

Most trophy hunters push for more trade of ivory, rhino horn and lion bones to be permitted. This puts elephants, rhinos and lions at greater risk since encouraging demand, in the insatiable markets of Asia (the majority of consumers are in Asia these days), for body parts of endangered or threatened species, only leads to more poaching, supported by powerful trafficking syndicates operating across Africa. Funding from trophy hunting does go towards supporting anti poaching patrols and de-snaring operations, but it does not help to solve the causes of poaching. It simply drives a never ending vicious cycle.

Trophy hunting outfitters get paid overseas for several hunts over a typical 2 – 3 week hunting safari and only a fraction of the hunting fees return to Africa. The money from trophy hunting that does come into Africa pales in comparison to the billions generated from photo tourism each year. Revenues from trophy hunting constitutes only a fraction of a percent of GDP in African countries where it’s practiced and almost none of that ever reaches rural communities.

A far better way forward for Africa, would be to begin to phase out unsustainable trophy hunting and ensure that more revenue from photo tourism goes towards supporting communities living close to National Parks, in creating protective community-run conservancies inside buffer zones, or in failed hunting concessions, for establishing various eco ventures – in exchange for their help in protecting the wildlife in and around the protected parks.

Regenerative tourism should be encouraged whereby tourists wishing to help support those communities, visit the community-run conservancies to contribute in some way – either helping to establish eco ventures, buying crafts or going on bird watching tours (until wildlife returns to the conservancies – which it will in time, once protected).


Statistics of elephant population, with hunter and dead elephant as background
Source :Facebook, unknown

Examples of why trophy hunting is not true conservation:

Lion populations have declined sharply in the last three decades, across Africa, due to threats such as habitat loss, retaliatory killings, snares set by poachers and increasing demand for lion bones and body parts from China. Populations in many range states are already dangerously low and yet hundreds of the largest males are trophy hunted each year. Not only does this remove the strongest, dominant males, but it often forces females – left with older cubs to feed and wanting to protect them from other male lions – to leave the parks and attack livestock which is easier to kill.

Very young cubs, unable to walk long distances, will simply be killed by less dominant males that take over the pride. Hunting regulations are often broken whereby pride males with cubs are targeted as ‘trophies’ – since they happen to be the largest lions around – with the biggest manes. By removing the fittest, resistance to deadly diseases is also depleted -nwhich can cause the loss of entire prides.

Elephant trophy hunting also not only depletes strong gene pools but also removes the older bulls and matriarchs with knowledge needed for survival in the wild. Many more elephants are now tuskless these days, which shows that trophy hunting is not sustainable in the long term – since the more the biggest tuskers are removed, the smaller the ‘trophies’ become. In that way, the rule of survival of the fittest is being overruled. Elephants evolved with tusks for a reason.

Tuskless elephants weaken their chances of survival since they need their tusks – to strip bark from trees and dig for water in dry riverbeds to survive long dry seasons, to defend their young from predators, and in the case of males with the largest tusks, as a show of dominance and to fight off rivals. Elephants are also family-oriented, sentient beings. Herds of female elephants are led by a matriarch and dominant bull elephants teach manners and pass on knowledge to younger males. So much is being lost each time a large bull or matriarch is trophy hunted or poached for their tusks!

True conservation should involve local communities in ways that will develop sustainable livelihoods and independence – and help to solve the causes of poaching.

The international community needs to help to solve the causes of poaching by calling for the urgent elimination of all demand for endangered/threatened species or their body parts. Interpol needs to help to remove the trafficking syndicates and stop smuggling through porous borders to help end the poaching crisis in Africa.

Rural villagers living alongside wildlife need support from grass roots NGOs who can help to surround villages, fields and bomas with effective elephant and predator proof fencing – to prevent human-wildlife conflict. Community members would need to be trained to maintain and protect the fencing on behalf of each community.

Once fields are well protected, environmentally-friendly farming methods that protect soils and increase yields – to ensure food security, steady incomes, and prevent deforestation – need to be taught. Holistic grazing and mob grazing methods need to be adopted to regenerate grasslands and predator-proof, mobile bomas used to allow grass to recover as livestock is kept moving to avoid overgrazing. Insurance herds should be kept by communities to compensate for losses.

These are self sustaining solutions that only need initial funding and expert advice to set up and get them running successfully. Grassroots NGOs need funding from many different sources to enable them to give a hand up, rather than hand downs, ensuring a better way forward which can be achieved without relying on seasonal funding from trophy hunters who target the biggest endangered or threatened species.

In arid areas that are used seasonally as migration corridors by elephants, where farming fails repeatedly, land should be set aside for wildlife and communities helped to set up community-run lodges and earn extra revenue from carbon credit schemes while helping to protect forests, as well as earning income from various eco ventures such as beekeeping and craft-work.

SOURCES

• IUCN/PACO: Big Game Hunting in West Africa. What is its contribution to conservation? IUCN, Cambridge, 2009, ISBN: 978-2-8317-1204-8

• Trophy Hunting and Sustainability: Temporal Dynamics in Trophy Quality and Harvesting Patterns of Wild Herbivores in a Tropical Semi-Arid Savanna Ecosystem

• Herbivores, Sustainability, and Trophy Hunting in the Matetsi

• Get the Facts About Trophy Hunting

Illegal hunting practices:

• Shooting into breeding herds (Conservancy Namibia/WWF)

• Killing Collared Elephants

• Trophy Hunting Fails to Show Consistent Conservation Benefits

• Big Game Hunting in Africa is Economically Useless (IUCN)

[Lisbeth]

Opinion: Ecologist responds to Guardian newspaper article against trophy hunting
Posted on 2 January, 2019 by Guest Blogger in Hunting, Opinion Editorial, Wildlife and the Opinion Editorial post series. — 49 Comments



Opinion post by Dr. Chris Brown – CEO: Namibian Chamber of Environment

Campaign against trophy hunting – a western urban cultural imposition on rights of rural African communities: arrogant cultural superiority or ignorance?

The difference in views on trophy hunting between the western urban elite and that of the people of rural Africa is stark. In a recent letter to the Guardian, a group of public figures in the UK described trophy hunting as “cruel, immoral, archaic and unjustifiable” and called for an end to global trophy hunting. In much of Africa, rural communities see all forms of sustainable hunting as legitimate use of their indigenous resources, in much the same way as western nations consider it their right to harvest fish, timber, deer, and use other natural resources for their livelihoods and economic growth. So, what is really behind the call for a ban on the import of wildlife trophies into the UK?

If trophy hunting was in fact good for conservation, would the public figures who are signatories to the letter still oppose trophy hunting? If trophy hunting was good for rural livelihoods in poor African communities, would the public figures still oppose trophy hunting? If trophy hunting had far fewer animal welfare issues associated with it than the widespread factory farming practices of mainly western countries, that puts meat, milk, cheese, eggs on the plates of the members of urban western societies, leather on their feet, and shiny briefcases in their hands, would they still be so opposed to trophy hunting?

And if all the above were true, as well as a range of additional positive benefits such as protection of natural vegetation and landscapes (countering the greatest threat to global biodiversity loss – land transformation), the collateral protection of a suite of less charismatic but equally important wildlife, limiting the impact of climate change, allowing land use to shift from low levels of primary production (e.g. domestic livestock meat production) in the drylands of Africa (covering over 65% of the continent and where most wildlife is to be found) to include wildlife-based service industries to significantly enhance land productivity and reduce climate vulnerability, would the public figures still oppose trophy hunting?



What we are trying to understand is whether these public figures are simply opposed to trophy hunting and perhaps other forms of sustainable use of wildlife because they don’t like the concept of killing an animal of a non-domestic species irrespective of significant potential benefits to conservation, the environment and people’s livelihoods; or do they genuinely think that trophy hunting is bad for conservation, bad for rural communities and violates animal welfare standards? Understanding this is fundamental in addressing the misconceptions of the campaign.

If these public figures are simply opposed to trophy hunting on the grounds of it being uncivilised from the perspective of their own urban western culture, irrespective of any environmental, livelihoods or other benefits, then there is little that can be argued other than to suggest that they should stop trying to impose their cultural views on the rights of others cultures – other cultures where people live side-by-side with their indigenous wildlife on a daily basis. And to tell these public figures that perhaps it is a bit arrogant of them to feel that they can make decisions about how other people, living thousands of miles away, should use their wildlife resources.

And perhaps it is more than a bit arrogant of these public figures, coming from a nation that has lost most of its charismatic megafauna (wolves, bears, elk, lynx, etc.) to impose on people of other cultures, who have not driven their indigenous species to extinction, without consultation or attempting to understand their views, how their natural resources should be used, based on their elitist western urban “civilised” perspectives. Or perhaps it is easier for these public figures to transfer their arm-chair conservation aspirations to a softer and more populist target than address the problems at home – namely to tackle the difficult task of convincing their own farmers and people who use the UK countryside of the importance of re-introducing and re-establishing their own nationally extinct wildlife as free-roaming populations across their own open landscapes.

Because, by trying to close down the trophy hunting sector in Africa, not only are they violating the rights of other people, cultures and nations, but they are removing the economic tools that create incentives for people to be willing to live with wildlife so that Africa’s wildlife does not go the same way as that of the UK – extinct. And these public figures should keep in mind that the challenge of living and farming with wolves, bears and lynx pales into insignificance against that of people living with lions, leopards, hyenas, elephants, hippos, buffalo, crocodiles to mention but a few of the challenging species.


Gonarezhou elephant killed by A hunter

On the other hand, if the public figures genuinely think that trophy hunting is bad for conservation, cruel, immoral, archaic and unjustified, and if they are genuinely interested in doing what is best for the long-term conservation of species, ecosystems and landscapes, and for the welfare of rural communities, then we have a lot to discuss.

Perhaps the first thing to say is that wildlife, and particularly the more charismatic megafauna of Africa, is Africa’s global comparative competitive advantage over the rest of the planet. While virtually every country on Earth has cattle, sheep and goats, only the continent of Africa has the variety and spectacle of wildlife that makes it stand out on the global landscape. How the countries of Africa use their wildlife, in the interests of their people and their economies, is for Africa to decide, not for a group of western urban public figures.

Second, the regions of Africa that have followed a western urban protectionist approach to wildlife management, exemplified by countries such as Kenya, have less wildlife today than at any time in their history. By contrast, regions that have created wildlife management systems based on devolved rights over wildlife to local communities and land owners, together with economic incentives, exemplified by countries such as Namibia and South Africa, have got more wildlife today than at any time in the past 150 years. Kenya’s wildlife continues to decline, Namibia and South Africa’s wildlife continues to grow – including that of elephants, rhinos, lions and other species.

Third, trophy hunting is an important component of the wildlife economy. It cannot be substituted by ecotourism. In many areas ecotourism has little potential, but the land is kept under wildlife and natural vegetation by the economic returns from trophy hunting, wildlife harvesting (for venison) and the live sale of surplus high value wildlife. In some areas, all four forms of wildlife management are practiced on the same land, i.e. tourism, trophy hunting, harvesting for meat and live sale. The greater the returns that can be sustainably generated from wildlife, the more secure is that land from agriculture, land transformation and a permanent loss of biodiversity.

Wildlife populations typically have natural rates of increase of between 15-35% per year (large species such as elephants and rhinos breed more slowly). Namibia’s wildlife population, for example, numbers about 3 million animals. Of these, only about 6% are in national parks which cover some 17% of the country. This apparent disparity is because a large component of Namibia’s national parks network is in the hyper-arid zone of the Namib Desert with very low rainfall (less than 70 mm per year) and low wildlife carrying capacity. Thus over 90% of Namibia’s wildlife is on communal and freehold farm land – and it is there only because it has value and people want it.

As a result, an additional 34% of Namibia outside of the national parks network is under formal wildlife management. Wildlife populations in these areas need to be managed to ensure that the natural vegetation is not damaged by overgrazing and over-browsing. Trophy hunting removes less than 1% of the national wildlife herd per year. These are mostly old bulls passed their reproductive peak. Harvesting for meat takes off most of the surplus animals. Because trophy hunting is such an important component of wildlife conservation and the wildlife economy, it is preferable to refer to it as “conservation hunting”, as the benefits include increasing land coming out of traditional agriculture and under indigenous biodiversity management. In Namibia, conservation hunting contributes about 20% more to the national economy than the entire small-stock farming sector, (about 4 million sheep and goats on about 27 million ha of land), with conservation hunting taking off less than 1% of the national wildlife herd per year. Much of this income flows to rural communities, as does the meat from animals hunted in their areas.

Fourth, it is necessary to clearly differentiate between legal hunting and poaching. Not to do so is akin to lumping legal diamond sales with illicit diamond dealing, legitimate cattle production with cattle rustling and the legal pharmaceutical industry with the illegal drugs trade. We don’t close down the legal components of these enterprises because there are illegal elements at play. And if anyone thinks that, by closing the legal pharmaceutical industry, the illegal drugs trade would be diminished or eliminated, they are delusional – the illegal drugs trade would simply expand to address the demand. The same applies to hunting, poaching and the illegal wildlife trade. Legal hunting is based on quotas and regulated activities with benefits going to those who manage the resource and run the businesses, and taxes going to the state. Poaching is theft, often incentivised and driven by international criminal syndicates – most from Asia.



Fifth, much of the hunting and sustainable utilisation debate within conservation has been taken over by the animal rights movement. We have great respect for people who stand up for animal welfare – we all should. The way that domestic animals are mistreated in high-intensity production systems, turned into factory units, held in unbearable conditions, will go down in history as one of Homo sapiens’ greatest crimes.

But animal rights and animal welfare are two very different things. The situation of wildlife in its natural habitat, in large open systems, is profoundly different to the life that domestic animals in factory conditions, abused by chemicals and a total lack of consideration for their species-specific requirements and welfare, face each and every day – particularly in the industrialised world where such practices are most prevalent. Animal welfare of domestic animals in high-intensity production systems should be by far the most pressing animal welfare issue on everyone’s agenda. From a conservation biology perspective, problems arise when animal rights agendas are passed off as conservation agendas, which they are not.

Conservation works at the population, species and ecosystem levels. Animal rights works at the individual level. And what might be good for an individual or a collection of individuals might not be good for the long-term survival of populations, species and ecosystems. This of course does not negate the need for ethical and humane practices, which should always be an integral part of good conservation management and science.

And finally, the economic drivers around wildlife conservation in the drylands of Africa are quite different to those in most western countries. The value of wildlife in western countries is generally far lower than that of Africa. This, combined with the fact that the agricultural potential and access to lucrative markets are far higher in western countries means that market forces are working against indigenous wildlife and in favour of agriculture and land transformation. The response of western conservation organisations and individuals is thus to counter these market forces, try to prevent the commercialisation of wildlife (because the land and its biodiversity will be lost to conservation anyway) and resist consumptive use of wildlife.

However, the system is quite the opposite in the drylands of Africa, provided rights over wildlife are devolved to local communities and land owners. Then, wildlife as a land use outcompetes agriculture and its associated land transformation. And the more it outperforms agriculture the more secure is the land and is biodiversity for long-term conservation. Removing conservation hunting from the wildlife economy reduces its competitive edge to the point where large areas will simply revert to agriculture.

For those living in western economies the situation of conservation hunting in the drylands of Africa may seem counter-intuitive. But for us in Africa, it is so obvious that we wonder why seemingly intelligent and well-meaning western conservationists are continually trying to undermine our conservation work, particularly where the record of conservation accomplishment in African countries with devolved economically-based sustainable use policies is so obvious.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr Chris Brown is the CEO of the Namibian Chamber of Environment (NCE), an umbrella membership body for environmental NGOs in Namibia. The NCE currently has a membership of 64 environmental NGOs – well over 90% of all ENGOs in the country. Dr Chris Brown is not a hunter. He is a vegetarian since the age of 11 because of welfare issues around domestic animals, a former director of the Namibia Nature Foundation (for 12 years) and the first Director of the Directorate of Environmental Affairs in the Namibian Ministry of Environment & Tourism. He has a PhD in conservation biology and interests in the tourism industry in Namibia.

[Lisbeth]

Below you will find the above-mentioned article of THE GUARDIAN.

[Lisbeth]

Ban imports of hunting trophies to the UK

Mon 17 Dec 2018 16.00 GMT

Signatories including Eduardo Gonçalves, Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and Bill Oddie call on the government to take action


Wildlife rangers with the carcass of an elephant, in Tsavo East, Kenya. Photograph: Khalil Senosi/AP

Hundreds of hunting trophies have been imported into the UK in recent years, including from species threatened with extinction such as elephants, lions, hippopotamuses, leopards, and rhinoceroses. Trophy hunting is having a negative impact on wildlife through the loss of significant numbers of healthy individuals that are key to the survival of rapidly declining populations. Unsustainable rates of trophy hunting have caused some populations of Africa’s big cats to decline, while hunting and poaching is outpacing the rate of reproduction of elephants. Trophy hunting is cruel, immoral, archaic and unjustifiable, and can act as a cover for illegal poaching.

We believe that a global end to trophy hunting is desirable, and that nature tourism is a humane and more effective means of conserving wildlife and supporting local communities. We therefore call on the UK government to commit to halting imports of hunting trophies as a matter of urgency.

Eduardo Gonçalves Founder, Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Sue Perkins, Tonia Antoniazzi MP, Damian Aspinall, Angie Best, Clive Betts MP, John Bishop, Nicky Campbell, Ronnie Campbell MP, Vernon Coaker MP, Ann Coffey MP, Jeremy Cooper, Rosie Cooper MP, Annette Crosbie, Edward Davey MP, Clive Efford MP, Peter Egan, Ranulph Fiennes, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Paul Flynn MP, Liam Gallagher, Zac Goldsmith MP, Eamonn Holmes, Kelvin Hopkins MP, Eric Idle, David Jason, Andrea Jenkyns MP, Lorraine Kelly, Jan Leeming, Caroline Lucas MP, Joanna Lumley, Stuart McDonald MP, Virginia McKenna, Vicki Michelle, Piers Morgan, Lesley Nicol, Bill Oddie, Albert Owen MP, Chris Packham, Sara Pascoe, Matthew Pennycook MP, Kevin Pietersen, Jonathon Porritt, Jonathan Reynolds MP, Carol Royle, Julian Richer, Jim Shannon MP, Ed Sheeran, Angela Smith House of Lords, Chris Stephens MP, Graham Stringer MP, Will Travers, Anna Turley MP, Carol Vorderman, Chris Williamson MP

[Lisbeth]

Trophy hunting in Africa is in decline, and no longer pays its way

Posted on 8 March, 2019 by Africa Geographic Editorial in Hunting, Research, Wildlife and the Decoding Science post series


Big game hunter with his ivory trophies

In addendums to his IUCN report titled ‘Africa is changing: should its protected areas evolve? Reconfiguring the protected area in Africa’, wildlife vet and protected areas consultant Bertrand Chardonnet proposes that big game/trophy hunting is in a state of decline and is no longer able to pay for its ecological footprint, leading to poaching and habitat loss in hunting concessions.

Chardonnet’s proposal is against the background of the following 3 indicators:

1. The progressive disappearance of big game/trophy hunting zones due to farming activities linked to population growth. Countries such as Senegal, Niger, Chad, CAR, DR Congo, Sudan, Malawi and Angola have lost 90% of land formerly available to big game hunting, while countries such as Kenya, Gabon, Cote d’Ivoire and Botswana (under review) chose to close big game hunting.

Amongst countries still offering big game hunting, ecosystem degradation and decline of game species have led to the non-use of significant portions of former big game hunting areas – 72% in Tanzania and 40% in Zambia. In Tanzania, 110 out of 154 hunting zones have been abandoned because they are no longer profitable for big game/trophy hunting. This represents a surface area of 140,000 km2 or four times the size of Tanzania’s national parks.

2. The decrease in the number of shot animals

Tanzania is Africa’s leading country for big game hunting in unfenced areas, and yet the numbers of lions and elephants shot have plummeted over the last six years (see Figure 1 below).

Despite a six-year age limit on lions (only lions older than six years may be shot), in 2015 66,7% of the lions shot were five years old, or younger. Aside from the issue of the hunting of under-age lions, this statistic demonstrates the lack of suitable lions left to hunt.

Additionally, during that time the annual lion hunting quota awarded by the Wildlife Divisions was 315 until 2015, and then 207 since 2016. This mismatch between available lions (as per Figure 1) and quotas was behind the reason certain Western countries controlled and even banned the imports of sport-hunted lion trophies.


Figure 1. Graph Evolution in the number of lions (left) shot each year in Tanzania, and trend lines (in red)

The dramatic surge in ivory poaching in Tanzania has led to the collapse of elephants available for hunting (Figure 1), as big game hunters target the same large-tusked individuals that poachers target. Taking into account the slow growth rate of tusks, it will take decades of protection with zero offtake before elephant hunting can recommence – a likely death-blow for the big game hunting industry in Tanzania. As was the case with lions, the awarded quotas were far in excess of what was available – with 200 elephants available on quota up to 2013 and 100 since 2014. The suspension of elephant trophy imports into USA was only imposed in 2014 – far after the decline in available elephants, and had little impact on the sustainability of the trophy hunting industry.

In northern Cameroon, the animals harvested per annum halved over the period 2008 to 2016, despite the same number of hunters.

3. The decrease in the number of hunters

The number of hunters in countries that provide trophy hunters to Africa have dropped dramatically. For example, in USA, the number of hunters had dropped by 18.5% between 1991 and 2016, from 14,1 million to 11.5 million. In France, the drop was 50% in 40 years.

When it comes to big game hunters visiting African countries, the numbers are not as easy to access, but South Africa has seen a 60,5% drop in eight years, from 16,594 in 2008 to 6,539 in 2016. In 2018, the former president of the Tanzanian Hunting Operators Association said that lion and elephant hunts had dropped to a handful. Figure 2 below shows the reduction in foreign trophy hunters visiting that country.


Figure 2. Evolution in the number of foreign hunters in Namibia from 2007 to 2013

Let’s talk money

The aspendse spent in Tanzania by trophy hunting operators for anti-poaching efforts was US$0.18 per hectare per year – far off the current standards of US$7-8, and Kenyan Wildlife Service’s figure of US$14. By spending a mere 2% of the required amount, Tanzanian trophy hunters have not been able to maintain biodiversity in those areas. Total revenue generated by the 200,000 km2 of hunting areas in Tanzania is US$30 million per annum, whereas the conservation cost for that land, if done correctly, would be US$150 million per annum.

When it comes to contributions to local communities, the average trophy hunting operator in Tanzania spent US$0,08 per hectare per year, compared with tourism concessions in Kenya’s Maasai Mara paying US$40 per hectare per year – without counting the redistributions linked to entry fees and employee salaries.

Moreover, the amount collected from Tanzanian trophy hunting operators were not all used in Tanzania, as highlighted in the Panama Papers financial scandal, which underlined the poor governance of this sector.

A good trophy hunting area would have a lion density of 2 per 100 km² and therefore requires about 5,000 km² (500,000 hectares) to shoot one lion per year, sustainably. The required annual spend to keep poaching at bay for that land alone would be a minimum US$4 million (500,000 x US$8). This compares to the sales price of an average lion hunt of US$50,000 (the price paid for Cecil the Lion). In other words, the going price for a lion is 2,5% of the cost to keep that lion area safe from poachers and habitat loss.

In South Africa Peter Flack, one of the leading defenders of hunting in 2018 wrote in his blog that after a 50% decrease in the number of foreign hunters in just a few years, many game farmers were killing their wild animals and replacing them with cattle, given the poor economic situation of the game farming sector. This follows the attempts to manipulate the wild, ethical character to keep these exploitations economically viable using artificial means, first of all through the hunting of lions kept in small enclosures (canned hunting), then through the genetic manipulation of ungulates to produce animals with different colours or larger trophies sought after by hunters. Condemnation of both practises has come from all corners, including groups of IUCN specialists, and the prices of these animals have now dropped to their lowest level. This leaves numerous game farms without real sources of income and thus without any means of funding their conservation.

Tourism versus big game / trophy hunting

In Kenya, tourism recorded a turnover of US$2.8 billion in 2017 for 429,500 direct jobs. Kenya does not permit big game / trophy hunting.

In neighbouring Tanzania, the figures were US$1,975 billion and creates 446 000 direct jobs generated off 57,800 km2 from tourism areas. By contrast, big game / trophy hunting in Tanzania generates US$30 million in revenue, and creates 4,300 direct jobs – off 200,000 km2 of hunting areas.

In Botswana, tourism generated US$687 million revenue in 2017, and created 26,000 direct jobs. By contrast, in 2014 (when big game / trophy hunting was banned) the trophy hunting industry generated under US$20 million in revenue, and created 1,000 jobs.

In conclusion, big game / trophy hunting:

1. has seen a rapid decline in Africa over several years;
2. does not protect the natural habitat from habitat loss and poaching
3. can only finance a small percentage of the sum required for its conservation; and
4. does not provide sufficient socio-economic benefits.

Hunting used to be a conservation tool, but in the great majority of cases it no longer plays this role and will not do so in the future either. Before many hunting zones are colonised, it is important to recover part of some of them to improve the configuration of certain protected areas and, through this, nature conservation.

The absence of the economic profitability of big game / trophy hunting confirm that consumptive management cannot generate sufficient income to conserve nature. The solutions thus now involve the funding of public goods, which involves living animals, and not the development of conservation actions based on the commercialisation of dead animals.

To read Chardonnet’s report in this regard, refer to page 33 (Appendix 2) and page 37 (Appendix 3) of this document.




ABOUT THE AUTHOR

BERTRAND CHARDONNET is a doctor in veterinary medicine by training. After a doctoral thesis in Guinea Bissau on wildlife management, he started to work in West Africa in 1985 as adviser for livestock breeding. Over the years, he has worked as chief game warden of Bamingui-Bangoran National Park in Central Africa Republic, adviser to the Director of Wildlife in Burkina Faso, adviser to the Minister of Environment in Chad and head of Rinderpest eradication in West and Central Africa.

During this time, he also served as co-chair of the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group. He has also performed wildlife veterinary services and consulted as protected areas and wildlife specialist, focusing on ecological monitoring, anti-poaching strategies, conservation strategies and protected areas planning.

Chardonnet has worked in 40 African countries, and today he focuses on training, ecotourism and wildlife photography.

[Peter Betts]

Couldnt have said it BETTER myself

[Richprins]

I think there is an agenda at play here - the lady doth protest too much.

[Alf]

Say NO to trophy hunting

[Peter Betts]

Say NO to trophy hunting

+ 10 000 000

[Lisbeth]

Opposition to trophy hunting is a major social movement for good

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

By Judy Malone• 7 March 2019

In an article to mark World Wildlife Day, Leith Meyer, a veterinarian at the University of Pretoria, writes about the danger of poorly informed social media campaigns mounted by distant advocates who, with all good intentions, might harm on-the-ground conservation efforts. His case in point is these highly emotional urbanised westerners who oppose trophy hunting. His opinion reveals a limited understanding of what is rapidly becoming a major social movement.

People around the world, including Africa, are now actively challenging the killing of endangered wildlife for pleasure and profit. They are educated, progressive and they travel. Many among them are conservationists, scientists and journalists. The opposition is science-based, informed, and driven by the inarguable reality that the world wildlife populations are in precipitous decline. The iconic endangered wildlife that populates Africa is of particular interest to trophy hunters. And the most prized trophy comes from the biggest and best individuals of the most at-risk species.

The vast majority of trophy hunters, who are in fact an elite minority, are Americans. They also kill here at home [the US], where they also target our continent’s most spectacular wildlife. We know them well, and we know how they operate. Here, as in Africa, they are both influential and opportunistic. Their public relations office in Washington D.C. spews out the same self-serving fiction. They fund scientists to write papers with results that unsurprisingly are in stark contrast to reports from independent biologists and conservationists in the field.

They maintain the myth that they, and only they, fund wildlife and habitat preservation. In instances where the hunting industry does, in fact, contribute to wildlife well being, the motive is purely to help ensure game stock. When the game is depleted, so are they and so is their funding. But they are well placed in government, and they have enjoyed success in facilitating their blood sport, largely because the non-hunting public has been unaware of their exploits. Social media has changed the game in more ways than one. As hunters expose their moronic delight in killing on social media, they also expose unethical unconscionable cruelty.

So we know through experience their motives have nothing to do with preserving wildlife or benefiting rural communities. Namibia has become a grim example of what happens when wildlife is depleted, hunting concessions abandoned and there is nothing much now for wildlife-watching tourists to see.

The Namibian government has been heavily under the influence of the trophy hunt industry and now gives wishful reports of the abundant wildlife that no one locally seems able to locate. When it concedes to mild losses, drought is referenced as the cause. But as conservationists and journalists there report, it was not drought but poaching and overhunting that left Namibia in this state. And rain will not bring the once teeming wildlife back.

Hunting is not remotely now and never has been a valid conservation tool. In fact, recent US studies report it is the single biggest threat to the future existence of larger mammals in particular. Sustainable utilisation is a term that has come to mean whatever a government wants it to mean, and is, in fact, nature-exploiting economic activity.

We need to ditch this human-centric view of the natural world as an “asset” and recognise ourselves as part of the community of nature, not outside or above it. There is a big attitudinal change happening, and among other things, it does not support unethical, unscientific and unsustainable use of wildlife.

The ongoing campaigns against trophy hunting that some, almost always affiliated with the industry, find so loaded with emotion and lacking in evidence are anything but. Interestingly, those who engage in protecting wildlife from guns and arrows stand accused of having little understanding of the issues on the ground in Botswana, say, or Kenya. But the people there who marginalise anti-hunt activists as keyboard warriors, as bleeding heart westerners who have no wildlife and no business commenting, in fact, show very little knowledge of wildlife issues in the western world, and in the Americas in particular.

It is frustrating because of course the issues we face are strikingly similar. Our wild species too are being threatened with overhunting, habitat degradation, expanding human populations, climate change, food shortages, and damaged ecosystems. Inexplicably, considering these multiple risks, we still are allowing trophy hunters to indulge their passion for prizes and trophy collecting. But that too is under scrutiny like never before, and though not without struggle and setbacks, activists are both seeking and obtaining bans.

So the opposition to the Orwellian notion of killing animals to save them is not going to go away any time soon, and in fact, is building rapidly. The overwhelming majority of people when polled not only oppose the gratuitous killing of wild animals but are repulsed by it. Every week international media remind people of what we are destroying all around us on this disastrous path we are following; we will change or we will follow other species into extinction. As for the final point in Leith Meyer’s essay, there is danger in the word balanced when discussing how to achieve conservation in complex systems. The balance is all too often weighted to human economic interests. DM 9

Judy Malone writes for Tourists Against Trophy Hunting, an international coalition to oppose the exploitation of wildlife everywhere.