[raymeedc]

Is Hunting Good For Wildlife?

Depends on whom you ask..... It's easy enough to make a case for one side and/or the other as an intellectual exercise, but I'm pretty sure, if able to participate in the discussion, that the objects of the hunt would come up with a definitive negative response.

[reeftool]

The thread title is somewhat misleading as it is specificly talking about trophy hunting in Africa. Wildlife in many areas have to be managed. An over population of one species can impact the survival of many others. Just about everybody can agree on this. The arguement seems to be whether this management should be done by hunting sportsmen with rifles or by govt. employees by whatever means they choose to limit herd size. Hunting licenses provide the funding for wildlife management in most states and without the income these licenses provide, wildlife management would be limited and probably end altogether in some places. This is especially true in third world countries in Africa where the population is near starvation and civil wars are breaking out. We hear more about Apes and Hippos than the hundreds who die daily from lack of basic needs such as clean water and a meal.

[lithos]

Your title is misleading since you are specifically talking about hunting in Africa.

Also, you don't distinguish between hunting and poaching.

Finally, you are lacking data from primary journal articles etc.

Out of curiosity, are you a vegetarian?

Settle down there, Blue. You'll blow an o-ring. He's in the Netherlands. He's not comin' to take yer guns away in the dead o' night with a squadron of UN black helicopters.

As for hunting, what MRR said is bang on, pardon the pun. Hunting is done to control, funnily enough, to curb the effects of prior hunting that was nowhere near as discriminating - taking dozens of apex predators in a single day, that sort of thing.

In short, the number of animals is just as important as keeping balance in the food chain.

[Blue]

Settle down there, Blue. You'll blow an o-ring. He's in the Netherlands. He's not comin' to take yer guns away in the dead o' night with a squadron of UN black helicopters.

As for hunting, what MRR said is bang on, pardon the pun. Hunting is done to control, funnily enough, to curb the effects of prior hunting that was nowhere near as discriminating - taking dozens of apex predators in a single day, that sort of thing.

In short, the number of animals is just as important as keeping balance in the food chain.

Go back and re-read. I don't know what you mean by the o-ring comment. I didn't say anything about guns. I was questioning the statement regarding no data on population dynamics when there are 100s of papers on antelope in Africa alone. In some cases if you look at the situation in some of the studies you will find out that some of the predators were actually had too high of a population in certain African systems.

There is also a difference in hunting and poaching including effects.

[bymy141]

Its misleading because your title specifies hunting as management when your discussion deals with part of Africa.

No, the end result is not the same with poaching. No, I'm not trying to put you in some morale camp. You are the one assigning moral camps. You did that automatically when you saw my post and that I am American. However, I consider people that complain about hunting (as apposed poaching) that aren't vegetarians to be hypocritical on some level.

You are wrong about there being no data. There is. And for the record, I am a biologist.

When I did hunt, I didn't do it for trophy sport. I don't particularly like that. However, I may hunt sometime in the future. Especially, if it is for food. I'm certainly not going to jump on some body for hunting and eating deer, boar, rabbit, squirrel, pheasant etc and then go out and eat a chicken sandwich, steak, turkey or bbq pork sandwich.

Edit: Here is the abstract and citation for 1 peer reviewed paper.

Hum, about the misleading thing. Perception is truth I guess. I didnot write the post with taking the US situation in mind. Since we have mostly Americans on this forum, I should have. Sorry for that.

About the political camps, I'm not involved in US politics, nor aware of the details of what has been going on over there. I'm not complaining. And I'm not talking about hunting in *general*, but that was about the misleading part. I'm not trying to save the world, I do have 2 cars, fly and leave the heating on when not at home

Hunting however does have a moral aspect when it is not done for necessity reasons on endangered species from where I'm coming from.

Also in a number of central and west African countries wildlife preservation is way off being under control. That I've seen first hand. When I visited these places before 1980, rhino's where around in many places. Now there are 3 left in Tanzania, 2 in Botswana, there are 25 reintroduced in Zambia out of Zimbabwe and South Africa's. Surrounded by as many rangers to protect them. South Africa's breeding program is fortunatly doing rather well. Lions and cheetahs are suffering in many parts as well. The situation is not Ok.

And yes, I do live in the Netherlands, guns are *forbidden* in this country. No, I'm not trying to discuss arms control in the US. That is a different subject and I consider myself too much remote of the US society (although I've visited your country many, many times), to take part in that discussion.

The point is that the issue seems not to have a long term solution that maintains wildlife levels large enough to sustain itself with a large enough gene pool.

Hunting right now is an important source of funding the wildlife protection, while at the same time it is one of the biggest threats.

For what it is worth, living in the Netherlands means that besides birds of prey and a few foxes, we have no predetors left here. So, hunting is a necessity to control the wildlife, despite all the protests. That is a end situation I do not wish for the African continent to happen. And yes, who am I to judge the African nations, while we have done the same thing to our wildlife.

[Ratmagiclady]

Hunting right now is an important source of funding the wildlife protection, while at the same time it is one of the biggest threats.

I think the issue here is that you're sort of lumping 'hunting' into one big absolutist category, or trying to, when in actual fact, the real question is 'How well is wildlife management being done in the presence of hunting and poaching?'

For what it is worth, living in the Netherlands means that besides birds of prey and a few foxes, we have no predetors left here. So, hunting is a necessity to control the wildlife, despite all the protests. That is a end situation I do not wish for the African continent to happen. And yes, who am I to judge the African nations, while we have done the same thing to our wildlife.

If you want to come to a consistent answer, consider it to be about 'respect.'

Much depends on the situation and how well people's intentions are brought about. Sometimes, it's cause an idea isn't the best. Sometimes, it's because there just isn't enough funding to withstand other pressures.

Sometimes, things are already broken, and people just have to do the best they can. But I wouldn't leap to that conclusion in any particular circumstance without a fight.

Some will say, 'Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was no 'true prophecy,' cause all the birds aren't dying! (As much!) Fraud!

Completely ignoring the fact, of course, that we actually did stop with the DDT.

Things can be done. Really. We're bound to lose a few ecosystems and large-animal species we'd rather not. (People don't pay much attention to the extinction rates that are ongoing about smaller ones they and we depend on) Doesn't mean to give up.

[Mallee Boy]

Is Hunting Good For Wildlife?

I'm pretty sure if the wildlife could answer they would say an emphatic no.

However.....beware the consequences.

I think you must always be aware of the balances within. To not "hunt" in the instance given here in the original post would no doubt lead to overpopulation of a species and lead to other means of culling.....generally caused by starvation when the over populated species eats all in its path.

Starvation / drought is nature's way of culling but of course in this day and age that is out of balance as animal species have less land to call their own.
None of the solutions are "nice", but if some form of management is not practised then there will only be a bigger problem.

The African rangers have probably got the issue of sustainability pretty well covered, if their rules are adhered to.

Poaching is a different question altogether and those who undertake this activity should be dealt with severely.

[Blue]

Bymy141,

Discussing this topic in relations to an animal or a group in relation to a specific place makes more sense. As for the rhinoceros goes, there are actually 5 species of them (2 African & 3 Asian). They are actually herbivores. However, many think of them as predators due to there aggressive nature. Three species are critically endangered, the Indian species has fewer than 3000 left and the white rhino (African) has fewer than 18,000 in the wild and the other African rhino the black rhino is also critical. Those common names don't mean much because they are both actually gray.

No hunter I know would hunt an animal under those circumstances. I definitely agree on moral grounds here as well as those of a conservationist. Rhinos have been a major target of poaching due to the horns being sought after on the black market for various reasons including traditional Asian medicine and knife handles in a few places. A similar situation exists for ivory from elephants.

[bymy141]

Bymy141,

Discussing this topic in relations to an animal or a group in relation to a specific place makes more sense. As for the rhinoceros goes, there are actually 5 species of them (2 African & 3 Asian). They are actually herbivores. However, many think of them as predators due to there aggressive nature. Three species are critically endangered, the Indian species has fewer than 3000 left and the white rhino (African) has fewer than 18,000 in the wild and the other African rhino the black rhino is also critical. Those common names don't mean much because they are both actually gray.

No hunter I know would hunt an animal under those circumstances. I definitely agree on moral grounds here as well as those of a conservationist. Rhinos have been a major target of poaching due to the horns being sought after on the black market for various reasons including traditional Asian medicine and knife handles in a few places. A similar situation exists for ivory from elephants.

You are right about the Rhino's, and yes I'm aware that they are not predetors. My reply may have been somewhat inconclusive.
Elephants are poached as well, however, their numbers are very different.

Some parcs did not have any protection or management until western charity organisations took initiative. See: African Parks Foundation - Home for example.

The term "white" Rhino, by the way, stems from old Afrikaans, in which language the species was called wijd Rino (pronounced white rhino), wijd means wide. Its lips are not shaped in a triangle as with the black rhino, but wide for grazing purposes. The skin of both species has the same color.
The British, after conquering South Africa assimilated many Afrikaans words for wild life. Like Wildebeast, Duikers, Bok etc.

Thanks for replying.

- Bert

[Das Boot]

Where's Ted Nugent when you need him?

[raz-0]

I think lumping all hunting into one category and failing to make distinctions will never result in anything but a wrong, and stupid sounding answer. Additionally, I think this is a subject for a couple common mistakes of "environmentalists" to arise. One is the notion that mankind some how exists outside the competition between species that all animals engage in. The other is that the pinnacle of being environmentally conscientious is that the environment is today exactly as it was yesterday.

The environment changes, with us, or without us. That includes species populations, habitats, everything. Trying to preserve the status quo forever is both doomed to failure and unnatural.

That aside, when you use the general term hunting you wind up with three legitimate categories where you might categorize people who engage in essentially the same act: killing animals.

1) human predation
2) entertainment
3) population control

Human predation: this is pretty much the same as saying lion predation or wolf predation, etc. People need food, and people need to live long enough to go about the business of being people. Every species tries to meet those goals by various means. For people, when you have wild animals harming people, the animals get hunted. When wild animals start damaging food production, the animals get hunted. When food supplies are scarce, wild animals get hunted. Because we are omnivores that are smart and use tools, we express responses to these basic pressures of population and habitat in a broader way than everything else, but we don't get to opt out of that fact of life because humans are somehow not animals. Every animal reacts to these pressures, and the net result is positive for some critter in the equation, and negative for other critters in the equation. If, as a species, we stop choosing to benefit ourselves, we lose the game and go away.

Personal enrichment: This is basically trophy hunting and, for lack of a better term, artifact harvesting. Killing something, more or less, to prove you can (and have), or to make an economic profit through taking some part of the animal to make something out of. It is purely a social construct that goes along with being smart animals and having a societal structure.

Population control: Because Humans are SMART animals with the ability to imagine long term consequences and plan ahead, as well as being an apex predator, we can understand that killing off animals to avoid harm and to protect our food sources can cause other species to overpopulate. We can also understand (in theory, unless you are someone like the folks who run peta) that overpopulation of species we don't necessarily care in terms of the pressure in case 1), can lead to problems with our habitat. We can prevent those problems by adopting the role of predators we have eliminated, and thus controlling the population they once kept in check.


As far as Africa goes, I'm not about to tell poor rural people that they and their children are lion snacks because we have to preserve the existence of the majestic lion. I'm also not going to tell them that they have to starve because the grazing area of some rare critter uses the same arable land they could be using to farm food. Without changing the situation somehow, that is effectively saying the animals win over the humans, and committing genocide by enforcing such regulations.

However, sometimes the farming is to grow food you export elsewhere. If turning animal habitat into farmland for profit makes a community say $200,000 a year, and wipes out the local population of a particular species, that is clearly bad for the animals. If you can bring in trophy hunters willing to obey regulations and pay a premium to be able to hunt those critters, they generate replacement funds for the $200,000 income, and the local population of critter X can survive the amount of hunting necessary to generate that income, then hunting can be good for the species.

On the other hand you need lots of humans cooperating to do that, and for people to not be so greedy as to try and make $400,000 by doing both and screwing over the species in question and the hunting industry.


As examples from America, we have serious overpopulation problems with feral pigs and deer in a large area of the US. We also have a population problem with bears that is increasingly a threat to human safety. One of my state's brilliant solutions to fixing the deer problem without permitting and encouraging more hunting has been to reintroduce coyotes. It hasn't cut into the deer population at all, but we have a TON less rabbits and squirrels, which are plentiful and easier to hunt and kill than even baby deer. We also no have an exploding coyote population that is really well fed, and thus very large (not the population, the individual coyotes are BIG for coyotes). They are now encroaching suburban communities and attacking pets and children. It would have been simpler to shoot more deer, but NJ government loves to hate guns and any use thereof.

[Blue]

The thing about elephants isn't just the size of the herds, but also the age structure. Elephants learn migration routes etc. from older elephants. If too many older animals are lost too quickly, "institutional" knowledge is lost from the herd.