Now, I understand the argument that species protection actually drives up the value on endangered species and encourages poaching. I also know that Ayn Randian ‘free market sollution to all problems-ists’ will say that revenue from trade in these species would provide financial incentive for governments to protect them.
My question is this: If the free market is such a great sollution to saving endangered species, why did it lead to them being endangered in the first place? I mean, the whole reason endangered species protection was implemented was because the lack of it was leading to their extinction, eh? Unless someone wants to argue that these species were doing fine until some Communist set up endangered species protection laws…or perhaps that species endangerment is another myth propagated by liberals…
Unbelievable. As Bucher mentions at the end of the article it is incredibly naive to think that the local communities, who will be making a pretty penny from the rebirth of the Great White Hunter, will be ploughing the profits back into conservation.
I read an article in The Guardian last year about trophy hunters making a comeback. Most of them are from the US, Germany and Britain. What is wrong with these people? They are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to shoot and kill elephants, polar bears, lions etc. Some tour operators even specialise in this growing field AND it’s legal.
The animals are shipped off to S Africa in most cases, stuffed and shipped back to the hunter’s home country. Again, it’s legal. If importing trophies were made illegal that would go some way to reducing the incentive for hunting in the first place.
“Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitat.”
Like the old line from Vietnam about destroying the village in order to save it.
[quote]This administration, in catering to industries that put America’s health and natural heritage at risk, threatens to do more damage to our environmental protections than any other in U.S. history. Here is NRDC’s account of what the Bush administration has done and is doing on environmental matters.
What is most scary about the Bush admin’s policy on the environment is that they don’t even PRETEND to give a rat’s arse about it. Usually you’ll hear politicians, Presidents harping on about how they want to save the environment, reduce pollution, and meanwhile doing the exact opposite.
Not so with W and co. You might call it being straight with the people. Or you might also call it supreme arrogance.
The question of whether it is right to use protected species for commercial gain is not that clearcut, especially if we are talking about developing countries.
Have a look at Kruger National Park (I’m not implying that the RSA is a developing country). Elephant culling was stopped about a decade ago and as a consequence their numbers are out of control. Elephants can be extremely destructive and with such high numbers in Kruger they are having a negative impact on the park’s vegetation. Contraception methods have failed.
[quote=“almas john”]The question of whether it is right to use protected species for commercial gain is not that clearcut, especially if we are talking about developing countries.
Have a look at Kruger National Park (I’m not implying that the RSA is a developing country). Elephant culling was stopped about a decade ago and as a consequence their numbers are out of control. Elephants can be extremely destructive and with such high numbers in Kruger they are having a negative impact on the park’s vegetation. Contraception methods have failed.[/quote]
[quote]Still, the application of “sustainable use” has never been so broad. Last November, the United States reversed its long-held position and voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to resume trade in their ivory stockpiles. Stansell said the sales, which have not yet begun, will support elephant conservation.
But Susan Lieberman, former chief of the Scientific Authority at the Fish and Wildlife Service and now director of the species program at the World Wildlife Fund, said legal trade in ivory always triggers illegal poaching. “Money doesn’t always mean conservation,” she added. “To me, the theme is allowing an industry to write the rules, which is a Bush administration pattern.” [/quote] washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy … Found=true
Why is this unbelievable? It happens all the time. Australia has a booming business centered on salt-water crocodiles, and those creatures have made a huge comeback over the least three decades. Duck hunters in the U.S. give enormous sums of money for the creation of wetlands that have allowed many kinds of waterfowl to rebound from low numbers.
For an endangered species, this process must be carefully managed, but using the market to protect them is neither a new idea nor a naive one.
You’re citing a US and an Australian example, which are inconclusive to the reasoning behind what’s going on in developing nations.
[quote]"The assumption that local communities will have the organization and altruism to put the money into long-term protection of the environment where you have terrible economic forces pushing for deforestation is a little na
Yes, I did cite Australian and American examples, but I don’t see why it’s naive to think markets are tools that Africans and Asians can’t use to save wildlife. To some extent, they already do. India, for example, has closely studied Australia’s market for its saltwater crocodiles in order to help India’s own endangered crocodile populations, which include salties as well as other croc species.
An economic incentive is just as much if not more of an incentive for poor people as it is for rich people. I agree, however, that governments still need to regulate the conservation, even if they adopt market incentives.
[quote]"The assumption that local communities will have the organization and altruism to put the money into long-term protection of the environment where you have terrible economic forces pushing for deforestation is a little na
[quote=“Cold Front”]
Australia has a booming business centered on salt-water crocodiles, and those creatures have made a huge comeback over the least three decades. [/quote]
Why were numbers of salties so low in the first place? Was it out-of-control hunting driven by a multi-million dollar industry in croc skins by any chance?
I guess salties are off the endangered list now, but what about species who are very much ON the list, like lions? You reckon hunters can shoot their numbers back up again?
It’s not just individual lions. Take out a dominant male (hunters prize these the most) and you imperil the rest of the pride. For many species, there’s no such thing as “sustainable hunting”.
[quote=“Spack”][quote=“Cold Front”]
Australia has a booming business centered on salt-water crocodiles, and those creatures have made a huge comeback over the least three decades. [/quote]
Why were numbers of salties so low in the first place? Was it out-of-control hunting driven by a multi-million dollar industry in croc skins by any chance? [/quote]
Yes, they were almost wiped out by unregulated hunting, but no one is suggesting a return to that practice. Instead, there should be a willingness to try regulated markets for some species.
[quote=“Spack”]I guess salties are off the endangered list now, but what about species who are very much ON the list, like lions? You reckon hunters can shoot their numbers back up again?
It’s not just individual lions. Take out a dominant male (hunters prize these the most) and you imperil the rest of the pride. For many species, there’s no such thing as “sustainable hunting”.[/quote]
If it’s the case that some species cannot be safely hunted without endangering them, then the practice should not be adopted. Period. Again, it’s a regulated market, not a free-for-all. And the proof is in the pudding. If certain markets do not contribute to the robustness of a particular species, then they should be discontinued.
By the way, the only species of lion which exists in prides that I know to be endangered is the Asian lion of Gir (in India), and it’s not hunted nor, as far as I’m aware of, is there an interest in hunting it. However, the African lions of the Serengeti are well-protected by the markets set up in East Africa for safaris and the hunting for prey species that co-exist with lions in the same habitat. As for the lions of Tsavo, I’m not sure what their condition is, but I’m fairly sure they aren’t endangered.
CF, the regulated market for lion hunting in South Africa and Botswana is conservation at its worst. It may benefit the hunters, but it certainly does not benefit the lions.
The following quotation is from an article which appeared in 2001: <<The government [of Botswana] usually permits the shooting of about 50 lions a year by trophy hunters but decided to impose the ban in part because American shooters favour lions with thick manes for their walls, leading to a disproportionate killing of mature males… Among those who campaigned for a ban on lion hunting in Botswana is Derek Joubert, the country’s leading chronicler of big cats. “I’ve been studying lions in northern Botswana for 20 years and watching them systematically decline in population size and health primarily, perhaps even solely, as the result of hunting,” he said.>>
Full article below: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,479311,00.html
The link below describes the horrendous paractice of “canned lion hunting”; lions bred in captivity and then released into a small area. Essentially, the hunt consists of a short chase and an execution. Nice way to preserve the species. http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/indexen.html (you have to scroll down to the Letters of Protest section.)
Just based on your article, I would say it appears a break is needed in hunting lions in Botswana, but it’s still difficult to judge the overall situation. You see just one side of the story, but you don’t see other aspects of it. Where are the revenues brought in by hunters (not to mention eco-tourism)? How do they help the lion? Has habitat loss played any part in the decline? I know it has for the Asian lion. According to your article, there are just 15,000 lions in Africa. Compare that to the 300 Asian lions now found only in India. This is for a species that once roamed from Turkey to China and which has not been hunted commercially for several decades.
Also, Botswana did exactly what I said a government should do in those circumstances; it allowed lions to be hunted until it appeared the hunting was hurting the overall population, and then it stopped. Botswana, in the future, may reopen hunting or it may decide to put restrictions on the hunting for pride males or it may do something else. In any case, I wouldn’t get my hopes up, if I were you, that the last lion has been hunted in Botswana. Restrictions on hunting for all kinds of animals are often adjusted, depending on all kinds of circumstances. Hunters know that limits on waterfowl and other game birds, for example, can differ not only from species to species, but from season to season.
[quote=“Spack”]The link below describes the horrendous paractice of “canned lion hunting”; lions bred in captivity and then released into a small area. Essentially, the hunt consists of a short chase and an execution. Nice way to preserve the species. http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/indexen.html (you have to scroll down to the Letters of Protest section.)[/quote]
That doesn’t seem very sporting, but on the other hand if a practice like it saves the species in the wild, then it may be worth it. Rather than reflexively be against markets for animals, look at the results.
So as long as you’re saving species it’s acceptable to farm and then hunt them. It’s perverted logic. Is hunting the ONLY way to save endangered animals? Of course not.
You mentioned eco-tourism. Surely, camera-toting tourists are better than ego-tripping hunters?
[quote=“Spack”]So as long as you’re saving species it’s acceptable to farm and then hunt them. It’s perverted logic. Is hunting the ONLY way to save endangered animals? Of course not.
You mentioned eco-tourism. Surely, camera-toting tourists are better than ego-tripping hunters?[/quote]
Spack,
I’m not a hunter and don’t think that I would be able to enjoy a hunt.
However, I don’t think that we can deny that regulated hunting does help tremendously to preserve species.
In my home state of Pennsylvania, where hunting is considered sacred (the first day of hunting season is always a day off school and work), we have more deer and geese and ducks than their were 300 years ago.
Personally, I’d rather photograph animals… but a camera shot does nothing to cull the herds/flocks when necessary.
