Dossier: hunting and human-wildlife conflict
Hunting is a topic that attracts polarised viewpoints. But as Mark Rowe demonstrates, when it comes to limiting human-wildlife conflict and to wider conservation measures, it’s not always so simple.
Mention ‘hunting’ and most of us think of poaching – primarily for ivory and the demands of Chinese medicine – or trophy hunting (see maps below); and the unpalatable image of a triumphant (usually) white Westerner straddling a dead, charismatic mammal. But the issue is a much wider and more nuanced one.
As the human population expands, the need to address conflict between humans and wildlife becomes increasingly urgent. Over the past 70 years, demographic change and corresponding demands for land for development have increased in biodiversity-rich parts of the globe, exacerbating pressure on natural systems and resources that both humans and other animals rely on to survive. In east Africa, for example, key wetlands, once the last resort grazing areas in times of drought, have been turned into tomato farms. Rivers that once flowed from Kilimanjaro to Tsavo have been pumped dry for irrigation. Elephants can no longer migrate across their traditional rangelands, so they become overpopulated in areas close to human settlement. The Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association reported 2,416 human-wildlife conflicts in Kenya between 2011 and 2015. Retaliatory killings of lions that kill valuable livestock – for example by Maasai villagers in Kenya’s Amboseli National Park – are regular occurrences.
‘If you ban hunting but don’t address human-wildlife conflict in another way, the killing translates into other means – the indiscriminate killing of wildlife, the spearing of cubs, the killing of pregnant females,’ says Dr Dilys Roe, chair of the Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). ‘From the perspective of a poor rural farmer, wildlife is more a liability than an asset. To live alongside it, and tolerate it, to put up with it killing livestock and destroying crops, there need to be sound financial incentives.’
Many conservationists however, believe hunting is a simplistic response to a complex issue. ‘If you opt for hunting for dealing with human-wildlife conflict then it shows the world you have lost your values and your creative thinking,’ says Dr Paula Kahumbu, chief executive of Wildlife Direct, a conservation non-profit based in the US and Kenya. ‘It’s very difficult to talk about conserving animals while shooting them. I’ve never heard of hunting actually helping to reduce conflict between humans and wildlife. Most human-wildlife conflict happens in a village setting, it’s usually a juvenile elephant jumping about. Hunting them just causes more stress to other animals in the herd or pride, they become impatient and that causes more problems.’
Read more here: http://geographical.co.uk/nature/wildlife/item/3698-dossier
Hunting is a topic that attracts polarised viewpoints. But as Mark Rowe demonstrates, when it comes to limiting human-wildlife conflict and to wider conservation measures, it’s not always so simple.
Mention ‘hunting’ and most of us think of poaching – primarily for ivory and the demands of Chinese medicine – or trophy hunting (see maps below); and the unpalatable image of a triumphant (usually) white Westerner straddling a dead, charismatic mammal. But the issue is a much wider and more nuanced one.
As the human population expands, the need to address conflict between humans and wildlife becomes increasingly urgent. Over the past 70 years, demographic change and corresponding demands for land for development have increased in biodiversity-rich parts of the globe, exacerbating pressure on natural systems and resources that both humans and other animals rely on to survive. In east Africa, for example, key wetlands, once the last resort grazing areas in times of drought, have been turned into tomato farms. Rivers that once flowed from Kilimanjaro to Tsavo have been pumped dry for irrigation. Elephants can no longer migrate across their traditional rangelands, so they become overpopulated in areas close to human settlement. The Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association reported 2,416 human-wildlife conflicts in Kenya between 2011 and 2015. Retaliatory killings of lions that kill valuable livestock – for example by Maasai villagers in Kenya’s Amboseli National Park – are regular occurrences.
‘If you ban hunting but don’t address human-wildlife conflict in another way, the killing translates into other means – the indiscriminate killing of wildlife, the spearing of cubs, the killing of pregnant females,’ says Dr Dilys Roe, chair of the Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). ‘From the perspective of a poor rural farmer, wildlife is more a liability than an asset. To live alongside it, and tolerate it, to put up with it killing livestock and destroying crops, there need to be sound financial incentives.’
Many conservationists however, believe hunting is a simplistic response to a complex issue. ‘If you opt for hunting for dealing with human-wildlife conflict then it shows the world you have lost your values and your creative thinking,’ says Dr Paula Kahumbu, chief executive of Wildlife Direct, a conservation non-profit based in the US and Kenya. ‘It’s very difficult to talk about conserving animals while shooting them. I’ve never heard of hunting actually helping to reduce conflict between humans and wildlife. Most human-wildlife conflict happens in a village setting, it’s usually a juvenile elephant jumping about. Hunting them just causes more stress to other animals in the herd or pride, they become impatient and that causes more problems.’
Read more here: http://geographical.co.uk/nature/wildlife/item/3698-dossier
