Saturday, April 4, 2015

The big issue about trophy hunting conservationists ignore


The big issue about trophy hunting conservationists ignore

Lately there have been several papers and essays in the literature about the value of trophy hunting to fund conservation of rare and endangered species.  Aside from the ethical and aesthetic issues around killing a magnificent animal so its head can be severed and displayed, the main point is that the people wanting trophies will pay a lot of money for the opportunity do so.   The follow-on to this argument then is that the money they spend creates a value for the animal and provides funds to poor countries to conserve living trophy species populations.   For the sake of discussion I’ll call the two schools the conservation hunters and the conservation professionals.  The hunters want to fund conservation by permits and fees to hunt, the professionals do not want animals killed for trophies and think conservation funding from other sources should suffice.

The underlying truth is that for the species in question, the status quo is not working.  More funding is needed.  Traditional funding sources seem not to be enough.  The hunters school say they can fill the funding gap.

But why should a relatively small amount of trophy funding make that much difference?  Even if there are a lot of hunters willing to pay, for rare species there just are not that many trophies to be had.  The income will be relatively small compared to the millions of people, some of them wealthy donors and foundations, willing to contribute for the conservation of charismatic endangered species (and all the species that might make good trophies are charismatic).   With all the millions of dollars available and being spent via the conservation professionals, how could the relatively small contribution of hunters make a difference?

A large part of the answer to this question is that the money from hunters largely goes directly to the countries where the endangered trophies can be hunted.  Permit fees go to wildlife departments, pay for guides and trackers go right to the communities around the endangered populations.  Funds from hunters might be relatively small compared to the overall pool for conservation.  But they seem to be inordinately effective because where they are spent.

Neighbors to the wealthy trophy hunters here in the United States might make comparable donations for conservation.  But their funds often do not go straight to foreign wildlife departments, guides and trackers.  Their donations go to conservation professionals.  They support a team of vice-presidents, policy analysts and accountants in the United States.  They support the office buildings, heating bills and all sorts of overhead for the people making sure the money that does make it to the trophy host country is well spent.  They support the annual gala and numerous wine and cheese events, asking for ever more money to protect those endangered species.  The hunters don’t need a gala, wine or cheese, much less a high-paid team of experts and administrators to manage the conservation spending.  Hunters send the money to the country, they get their permit, essentially buying an animal, they go there hiring local guides; their overheads are the lodges and inns where they stay.   Funds from trophy hunters, unlike typical conservation donors, are not spent in the United States.

Whether you think trophy hunting is ethical or not, whether you think it threatens populations more than saves them, there is a message conservation professionals and conservation donors should learn.  If we learned how to direct conservation donations more directly to where they have benefit, if we learned how to eliminate money-sucking middlemen, if we essentially paid for conservation the way hunters pay for trophies, then we might have less need for trophy funding and quite possibly fewer endangered species.

4 comments:

  1. But depending on the country, the fees paid to wildlife agencies may not go to wildlife conservation. That money is often diverted. Not every country is like South Africa.

    ReplyDelete
  2. During 1989–2001, CAMPFIRE generated over US$20 million of transfers to the participating communities, 89% of which came from sport hunting. The scale of benefits varied greatly across districts, wards and households. Twelve of the 37 districts with authority to market wildlife produced 97% of all CAMPFIRE revenues, reflecting the variability in wildlife resources and local institutional arrangements. The programme has been widely emulated in southern and eastern Africa. It has been estimated by the World Wildlife Fund that households participating in CAMPFIRE increased their incomes by 15-25%.[3] Between 1989 and 2006 the project generated US$30 million, of which approximately 52 percent was distributed to local communities to promote rural development projects. No location has benefited more substantially than the Masoka ward, which has used its revenue to improve the livelihoods of its rural residents by building a four-block primary school, a two-ward clinic, a grinding mill, and two hand-pumped boreholes, to name but a few. In addition, environmental benefits have been witnessed since CAMPFIRE's inception; elephant numbers have increased, buffalo numbers are either stable or witnessing a slight decrease, and habitat loss has diminished, and in certain regions, even reversed. CAMPFIRE leadership also chose to invest communal development funds from tourism revenue to build a beer hall for local residents.

    So $50 mill...not a huge return on that kind of investment.

    What happens if the money stops rolling in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ay there's the rub.... what happens when money stops rolling in?? especially with things like ICADs and REDD that promote the idea people should get cash for their forests....

      Delete
  3. I have developed a deep respect for the skills, patience and advancements in weaponry and hunting accessories available in the world today. Click for more info

    ReplyDelete