Conservation efforts not working? Too many animals being "bumped off" in "unfortunate accidents"? Eugene LaPointe suggests we legalise hunting to, well, boost animal numbers. I'm not really qualified to comment on the matter - my knowledge of the extent of poaching and elephant populations in Africa is limited at best - but I found it intriguing nevertheless. Of course, any attempt to legalise trophy hunting will need strict regulations and monitoring of animal populations, as it is likely that we may see a sudden drop in the number of exotic species if the park owners are not vigilant.
The potential benefits are mostly economic - the park would be able to provide employment for native residents while commanding high hunting fees for those involved. It could also boost tourism, but at the possible cost of further endangering some species. The money would be expected to be used for conservation efforts, although critics have cast doubt over how much would actually trickle down to the park.
While contrasting Kenya's protectionist policy with South Africa's more open view towards hunting, LaPointe fails to account for habitats and the political climate, which could be deciding factors in the success of a conservation effort. Moreover, it has been pointed out by some that it is likely that hunters will focus on the fittest and most biologically desirable members of the species, thus resulting in a more limited gene pool for the species. This may not be a problem in Botswana or South Africa, where elephant numbers are booming, but it could have disastrous implications for Kenya, which has a much smaller elephant population and is struggling with poaching as it is.
What LaPointe is really suggesting is sustainable hunting, which would protect the current population and boost the country's economy. However, ensuring sustainable use of the National Park's resources itself requires great effort and resources, which may not be available in Kenya. It's not a bad idea, but one must look into its feasibility before embracing it as a panacea for conservation efforts.
Of course, Dick Cheney couldn't care less about elephants. He's still going for the prize kill - 78 year old men. Rumour has it he might settle for "peppering" their facial region.
The potential benefits are mostly economic - the park would be able to provide employment for native residents while commanding high hunting fees for those involved. It could also boost tourism, but at the possible cost of further endangering some species. The money would be expected to be used for conservation efforts, although critics have cast doubt over how much would actually trickle down to the park.
While contrasting Kenya's protectionist policy with South Africa's more open view towards hunting, LaPointe fails to account for habitats and the political climate, which could be deciding factors in the success of a conservation effort. Moreover, it has been pointed out by some that it is likely that hunters will focus on the fittest and most biologically desirable members of the species, thus resulting in a more limited gene pool for the species. This may not be a problem in Botswana or South Africa, where elephant numbers are booming, but it could have disastrous implications for Kenya, which has a much smaller elephant population and is struggling with poaching as it is.
What LaPointe is really suggesting is sustainable hunting, which would protect the current population and boost the country's economy. However, ensuring sustainable use of the National Park's resources itself requires great effort and resources, which may not be available in Kenya. It's not a bad idea, but one must look into its feasibility before embracing it as a panacea for conservation efforts.
Of course, Dick Cheney couldn't care less about elephants. He's still going for the prize kill - 78 year old men. Rumour has it he might settle for "peppering" their facial region.
No comments:
Post a Comment