Hunting - yes or no?

[madbradd]

 

I think straight off the bat that, considering most of the responses on this thread, that very few people take time to fundamentally understand the question. Does hunting contribute to conversation? 

 

The first question that should be answered is what is understood by ‘conservation’ and why there is a claimed need for conservation. The second question is what is understood by hunting and whether it promotes, harms or has no impact on species conservation. 

 

In general, wildlife conservation is the practice of protecting wild plant and animal species and their habitat. Conservation can be either be in situ (protecting endemic species in their natural habitat) or ex situ (maintenance and breeding of endangered plants and animals controlled conditions such as zoo, gardens, nurseries). It is also important to keep in mind that there are conservation-reliant species of fauna and flora. These require constant conservation, as without it extinction is a certainty. 

 

Now, the question as to why species conservation is necessary, the answer is virtually always the same: human intervention in natural environments. We are the primary cause of why other animals need to be protected.  

 

Within the context of this discussion, hunting is related to in situ conservation. The types of hunting that are relevant here are either trophy hunting or culling. Thus, does trophy hunting or culling promote, harm or have no impact on species conservation? The answer to that question is, unfortunately, that it can both promote and harm species conservation. Reading the available literature, it’s clear that this type of question is very region specific and that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of hard science/data available. There is a whole lot of pro- and against anecdote dressed up a scientific analyses, but they’re easy to spot and even easier to dismiss than a pro-dietary cholesterol study funded by the American Egg Board. 

 

The strongest argument that the pro-hunting group rely on is that their payments for hunts provide the financial means to support conservation efforts in a specific area. This would typically include anti-poaching efforts, supporting local communities, infrastructure, etc. However, there are a number of issues associated with trophy hunting: 1) ethics (see below) 2) failure to involve local communities and 3) biological constraints, including poor quota establishment, overhunting, predator removal, etc. 

 

It is common for the benefits of hunting to be exaggerated. This makes sense, as there is a vested interest for these parties to ensure the survival of this sport.

 

In pondering this question, I keep on coming back to humanity’s dysfunctional and abusive relationship with our fellow earthlings. We move into natural ecosystems, create artificial borders, put up game fencing and then have to start playing god, because we’ve disrupted the natural ecosystem. A Limpopo ranch breeding antelope for hunts or a canned lion facility in the North West does sweet blue fokol for conservation. I can’t believe that hunting could ever be a sustainable form of conservation. Unless we square our concepts of property rights to better align with natural ecosystems and allow nature to self-regulate, we’ll continue to lose species at current rates. 

 

This is such a complex issue, because that is how WE’VE made it. It’s saddening that the interests of those that will suffer most, the non-human animals, is being put last. 

 

 

That's the nail on the head. Too many people for the planet, and the collective mindset that the planet is ours to treat the way we want. As a result of our actions, conservation is a necessity to keep many species going. Unfortunately, the only way that conservation can continue is if there is funding (the ethics of this is a different debate). The reality is that you get many more people who will pay USD10k + costs to hunt a buffalo/elephant/lion and have the opportunity to kill it, than you will get people to go for a walk in the bush for 10 days (again, the ethics of this is a different debate). Further to that, if there are too many of a particular species for the area (and no buyers for the live animal), why not sell the hunt instead of having to kill the animal for no return?

 

In today's age where humans are effectively the predators which are becoming (or have become) an out of control population, when do we take measures to regulate our own population? Makes you wonder if Thanos is actually the good guy....

[forkie]

The unfortunate reality of the situation is we as humans "own" the land. And we always want a return from the land. Yes this is unfair on the planet and its wrong, but it is what it is. With this in mind, the biggest argument for hunting / game farms is that it is much less harmful to the general environment than planting crops or running cattle / sheep / goats. just look at the karoo how angoras have destroyed the natural vegetaion. So if hunting was banned and all these game farmers had to then do something else with their land we would lose huge amounts of natural faun and flora.

Edited October 22, 2018 by forkie

[Odinson]

The unfortunate reality of the situation is we as humans "own" the land. And we always want a return from the land. Yes this is unfair on the planet and its wrong, but it is what it is. With this in mind, the biggest argument for hunting / game farms is that it is much less harmful to the general environment than planting crops or running cattle / sheep / goats. just look at the karoo how angoras have destroyed the natural vegetaion. So if hunting was banned and all these game farmers had to then do something else with their land we would lose huge amounts of natural faun and flora.

 

I would have to disagree with you here, on numerous points you've raised.

 

Unfettered exploitation of natural resources cannot just be written off as "it is what it is". 

 

Further, if you delve into the available literature, you'll see that the zero-sum picture you're sketching isn't a true representation of the reality of game ranching and conservation. In 2016 the Endangered Wildlife Trust completed an 18 month national study on the wildlife ranching sector of South Africa. There is an estimated 9 000 wildlife properties covering an area approximately 17 million hectares in SA. Here is a very interesting finding that they made:

 

 

 

“Not all wildlife on wildlife ranches can be considered to be ‘wild’ however, because they are generally kept in breeding camps, fed supplemental food to stay alive, protected from predators and given veterinary care. Although ‘wild’ is difficult to define precisely, it implies an animal that has to fend for itself. The study estimated that around 6% of the area used by wildlife ranching comprises intensive breeding camps for high value species such as buffalo, roan, sable and colour variants of plains game. This statistic does not necessarily present a problem for conservation on private land if the remaining 94% of wildlife ranching areas are managed extensively and in line with biodiversity conservation principles. However, an issue of concern is that the area under intensive management is increasing and we cannot say that the remaining land is indeed being managed for biodiversity conservation. This may lead to increasing amounts of fencing, which fragments the landscape further, and may also result in breeding management practices that select animals according to human preferred characteristics rather than naturally selected traits.”

 

Just to put it into perspective, that 6% that is referred to represents over a 1million ha that is used as intensive breeding camps.

 

Do you think that the farmers who own these private game ranchers have species and biodiversity conservation front of mind? Do you also think that they have the necessary technical skills, training and education to understand the needs of the fragmented ecosystems that they have created?

 

https://www.ewt.org.za/media/2016/THE%20ROLE%20OF%20THE%20WILDLIFE%20RANCHING%20INDUSTRY%20IN%20SOUTH%20AFRICA.pdf

 

It’s also important to keep in mind that the same study found that the “majority of such ranches have been converted from livestock farms after it became more economically viable to keep and use wildlife for commercial purposes.”

 

 

You raised an interesting point with your example of the Angoran sheep farming in the Karoo. A recent study found that "private wildlife production – game farming – has increased significantly in South Africa over the past decades. In the Eastern Cape, more than 90% of mainly white commercial farmers and private landowners have diversified, adding or changing to game farming. About 7% of the commercial farms in the province have converted entirely to wildlife production." They go on to state that “conversions are (also) a reaction to post-apartheid land reform and labour legislation policies, which white farmers and landowners perceive as a serious threat. They (the farmers) seek to legitimate their position in society and reassert their place on the land by claiming a new role as nature conservationists.”

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02589001.2014.925300?journalCode=cjca20

Edited October 22, 2018 by Odinson

[Chris_]

big snip..

 

They go on to state that “conversions are (also) a reaction to post-apartheid land reform and labour legislation policies, which white farmers and landowners perceive as a serious threat. They (the farmers) seek to legitimate their position in society and reassert their place on the land by claiming a new role as nature conservationists.”

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02589001.2014.925300?journalCode=cjca20

 

This is pretty sad if its accurate.

[DJR]

This is pretty sad if its accurate.

Another take on it is that stock theft became such a big problem in some areas that it made farming sheep and cattle near impossible. Game is much more difficult to steal. Introducing dangerous game like buffalo also helped secure things........until rhinos got onto the menu! 

 

I know someone who gave his 5 rhino away, because he could no longer afford the R50 000 a month to hire security. He also no longer wants to carry the additional risk to himself, his family and his staff. First they had a rhino killed, then they removed the horns to make them less attractive. Then they had a robbery attempt on the safe where the horns were kept. Short version.......no more rhino and rhino habitat lost. Someone else now shoulders the risk and the cost of keeping  those rhino........but he cannot sell them, cannot make money from them (the tourists go to Kruger, Londolozi and Shamwari, not Joe Soaps' 20 000 hectares), cannot make them pay for themselves.........how long before bleeding money forces him to come to the same conclusion? 

[leeubok]

 

I think straight off the bat that, considering most of the responses on this thread, that very few people take time to fundamentally understand the question. Does hunting contribute to conversation? 

 

The first question that should be answered is what is understood by ‘conservation’ and why there is a claimed need for conservation. The second question is what is understood by hunting and whether it promotes, harms or has no impact on species conservation. 

 

In general, wildlife conservation is the practice of protecting wild plant and animal species and their habitat. Conservation can be either be in situ (protecting endemic species in their natural habitat) or ex situ (maintenance and breeding of endangered plants and animals controlled conditions such as zoo, gardens, nurseries). It is also important to keep in mind that there are conservation-reliant species of fauna and flora. These require constant conservation, as without it extinction is a certainty. 

 

Now, the question as to why species conservation is necessary, the answer is virtually always the same: human intervention in natural environments. We are the primary cause of why other animals need to be protected.  

 

Within the context of this discussion, hunting is related to in situ conservation. The types of hunting that are relevant here are either trophy hunting or culling. Thus, does trophy hunting or culling promote, harm or have no impact on species conservation? The answer to that question is, unfortunately, that it can both promote and harm species conservation. Reading the available literature, it’s clear that this type of question is very region specific and that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of hard science/data available. There is a whole lot of pro- and against anecdote dressed up a scientific analyses, but they’re easy to spot and even easier to dismiss than a pro-dietary cholesterol study funded by the American Egg Board. 

 

The strongest argument that the pro-hunting group rely on is that their payments for hunts provide the financial means to support conservation efforts in a specific area. This would typically include anti-poaching efforts, supporting local communities, infrastructure, etc. However, there are a number of issues associated with trophy hunting: 1) ethics (see below) 2) failure to involve local communities and 3) biological constraints, including poor quota establishment, overhunting, predator removal, etc. 

 

It is common for the benefits of hunting to be exaggerated. This makes sense, as there is a vested interest for these parties to ensure the survival of this sport.

 

In pondering this question, I keep on coming back to humanity’s dysfunctional and abusive relationship with our fellow earthlings. We move into natural ecosystems, create artificial borders, put up game fencing and then have to start playing god, because we’ve disrupted the natural ecosystem. A Limpopo ranch breeding antelope for hunts or a canned lion facility in the North West does sweet blue fokol for conservation. I can’t believe that hunting could ever be a sustainable form of conservation. Unless we square our concepts of property rights to better align with natural ecosystems and allow nature to self-regulate, we’ll continue to lose species at current rates. 

 

This is such a complex issue, because that is how WE’VE made it. It’s saddening that the interests of those that will suffer most, the non-human animals, is being put last. 

 

Ah, I was eagerly waiting for this post. Some good arguments in there. 

 

However, the Limpopo ranch and canned lion facility in the North West you mention. They may not contribute to conservation of whatever large mammal you want to use as an example, BUT by keeping that farm in a natural state it contributes to the conservation of fauna and flora people don't often think of. The birds, the bees, insects, reptiles etc. We stare too blindly at the big and hairies, species that quickly elicit emotion from us, but forget about the little things. 

[leeubok]

I would have to disagree with you here, on numerous points you've raised.

 

Unfettered exploitation of natural resources cannot just be written off as "it is what it is". 

 

Further, if you delve into the available literature, you'll see that the zero-sum picture you're sketching isn't a true representation of the reality of game ranching and conservation. In 2016 the Endangered Wildlife Trust completed an 18 month national study on the wildlife ranching sector of South Africa. There is an estimated 9 000 wildlife properties covering an area approximately 17 million hectares in SA. Here is a very interesting finding that they made:

 

 

 

Just to put it into perspective, that 6% that is referred to represents over a 1million ha that is used as intensive breeding camps.

 

Do you think that the farmers who own these private game ranchers have species and biodiversity conservation front of mind? Do you also think that they have the necessary technical skills, training and education to understand the needs of the fragmented ecosystems that they have created?

 

https://www.ewt.org.za/media/2016/THE%20ROLE%20OF%20THE%20WILDLIFE%20RANCHING%20INDUSTRY%20IN%20SOUTH%20AFRICA.pdf

 

It’s also important to keep in mind that the same study found that the “majority of such ranches have been converted from livestock farms after it became more economically viable to keep and use wildlife for commercial purposes.”

 

 

You raised an interesting point with your example of the Angoran sheep farming in the Karoo. A recent study found that "private wildlife production – game farming – has increased significantly in South Africa over the past decades. In the Eastern Cape, more than 90% of mainly white commercial farmers and private landowners have diversified, adding or changing to game farming. About 7% of the commercial farms in the province have converted entirely to wildlife production." They go on to state that “conversions are (also) a reaction to post-apartheid land reform and labour legislation policies, which white farmers and landowners perceive as a serious threat. They (the farmers) seek to legitimate their position in society and reassert their place on the land by claiming a new role as nature conservationists.”

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02589001.2014.925300?journalCode=cjca20

Here you are quoting an extract that deals with the intensive and selective breeding of animals, mostly colour variants. And I completely agree with what is said there. What these guys do is divide their farm into 100's of camps, and erect fences no living animal can get through. So many reptiles etc die trying to get through these fences. These okes often say they're doing it for the conservation of that species, which is utter bull...

 

So many of these farmers that converted from something else to game farming was trying to cash in on the selective and intensive breeding market. Unfortunately for them it seems that bubble has popped. Although I must admit, I haven't kept up to date with that for a while now. 

 

But you cannot compare this with a normal game farm with no internal fencing. 

[leeubok]

This is pretty sad if its accurate.

I cannot agree with the quoted piece. How do they bring race into the equation??? Lets rather not go there.... 

[Odinson]

Ah, I was eagerly waiting for this post. Some good arguments in there. 

 

However, the Limpopo ranch and canned lion facility in the North West you mention. They may not contribute to conservation of whatever large mammal you want to use as an example, BUT by keeping that farm in a natural state it contributes to the conservation of fauna and flora people don't often think of. The birds, the bees, insects, reptiles etc. We stare too blindly at the big and hairies, species that quickly elicit emotion from us, but forget about the little things. 

 

I agree in part with you. 

 

You're absolutely right when you say that when people often think of 'conservation' that they usually only think of (large) mammals. Conservation should ensure that all of the fauna and flora of an ecosystem remain in a natural state, allowing itself to self-regulate. 

 

I'm curious as to on what you base your claim that "by keeping that farm in a natural state it contributes to the conservation of fauna and flora". Is this a general assumption? Are you stating that this is the case on ranches practicing ecotourism, intensive breeding, live sales, trophy- and biltong hunting or culling? Or any combination of the aforementioned? Are you claiming that all/most ranches are in a 'natural state'? 

 

How do you square conservation with many farms who do not have self-sustaining populations of ungulates and other large mammals, where predator control is in place and where supplemental feeding and veterinarian care is provided? 

[Odinson]

Here you are quoting an extract that deals with the intensive and selective breeding of animals, mostly colour variants. And I completely agree with what is said there. What these guys do is divide their farm into 100's of camps, and erect fences no living animal can get through. So many reptiles etc die trying to get through these fences. These okes often say they're doing it for the conservation of that species, which is utter bull...

 

So many of these farmers that converted from something else to game farming was trying to cash in on the selective and intensive breeding market. Unfortunately for them it seems that bubble has popped. Although I must admit, I haven't kept up to date with that for a while now. 

 

But you cannot compare this with a normal game farm with no internal fencing. 

 

From what I've read, it does seem to be that the demand for selective breeding is beginning to taper. 

 

However, it does appear that this type of intensive breeding is the norm. Let's have a look at the data: 

 

 

One hundred and twelve (112) of the ranchers (45%) surveyed indicated that they conducted intensive or semi-extensive breeding (Table 6 and Figure 6), of which 89% had exemption permits.

 

[Odinson]

I feel the need to call you (Leeubok, forkie and the rest) out on the dishonest catch-22 that you present: either allow wildlife ranching (incl. hunting) and have conservation or agriculture and no conservation. 

 

Looking at the data, you can see the following: 

 

 

Mixed farms comprised 45.8% of wildlife ranching properties surveyed (115/251) (Figure 13). Of these, 101 (40.2%) kept livestock and wildlife, three (1.2%) grew commercial crops alongside wildlife, and 11 (4.4%) kept livestock and grew crops alongside wildlife. One-hundred and thirty-six (136, 54.2%) wildlife ranchers kept wildlife exclusively. Landowners who grew crops such as lucerne or maize for the purpose of supplemental feeding of their own wildlife or livestock, and who did not sell the crops for commercial gain were not counted as mixed farmers (unless they kept livestock as well). There were 53 such landowners (21%), and the areas over which they grew such crops were generally small in relation to their properties.

 

 

Thus, painting ranchers as reformed farmers, striving for conservation, is being disingenuous. 

 

I'm sure you're aware of the history of wildlife ranching in SA and the monumental turning point that came with the Game Theft Act (1991). The reason that so many farmers abandoned traditional agriculture was primarily because it would become more lucrative to breed and kill animals for the purpose of selling or hunting them. 

 

 

 

[Chris_]

You keep moving the goal posts here. 

 

Canned lion hunting farms. Does this hunting contribute to conservation? Geological conservation no – additional fences, walls, outhouses will need to be built here to 'grow' and 'store' the lions for hunting, plants – no we’re still interfering, animals no. 

 

'Intensive and selective breeding' farms. Sidenote - I do also feel the line between the picture you paint of 100’s of rows of pens, to a small independently run farm, to a large scale effort will certainly be blurred and contain many similarities. Regardless, does hunting this farm contribute to conservation? No, none of the above… earth, wildlife, habitat, animals, fail.

[leeubok]

On that elephant hunt incident:

[leeubok]

Odinson, I'll respond again on Thursday. Won't be in front of my pc again till then. It's a mission typing on the phone. Cheers till then!

[G.S.W]

Edited October 24, 2018 by G.S.W

[DJR]

Perhaps the question we have to ask ourselves is this:

 

When we die, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps far in the future, will we leave earth a better place than it was the day we were born, or will we leave it worse off, because of how we lived our lives?

 

If you can honestly say that you made it a better place, then I don't care whether you are a vegan or a hunter and I take your side, you are my brother in arms!

Edited October 24, 2018 by DJR