IUCN Decision On Trophy Hunting

[PeteG]

This is an interesting read, not sure if its been posted already though.

I was talking about land use and private conservancies last night and this popped up this morning... think someone is reading my mind!

Page 12 does give some interesting numbers for wildlife populations.

 

[Pheroze]

That is a great read, thanks. Good quality references too. The article does lend some support to the decision by USFWS to examine the conservation practices of the regions where the animal is hunted. However, and this is important, the article discusses how hunting has a positive impact even where the controls are lacking. Bottom line? Bans don't work but they serve a governmental purpose of being easy to implement. A classic case of image development (being seen to do something) trumping substantive initiatives (actually doing something useful).

AH needs a references quick link to put these quality articles in a place easy to find. Like the new posts button, call it "library ". Also, there are numerous references in this article that merit their own listing; I learned something about polar bear management today!

 

[CAustin]

Pheroze I like your idea about the reference library.

 

[adriw]

Hunting conserves wildlife?

A few days from now, the European Parliament is voting to consider allowing further imports of trophy hunted animals. The vote to ban such imports will likely not attain a majority this time around, but nevertheless the IUCN published a document to inform Members of European Parliament about the positive benefits of trophy hunting for wildlife conservation.

Hats off to the IUCN, this document is a masterful example of encouragement of their views coupled with a discreditable handling of facts and statistics (see below). While there are some references to the negative impacts of trophy hunting, these are in short order glossed over with sentiments like “while there might have been some errors made, the overall benefit to conservation is positive”.

We should all recognize that the IUCN is supported by our taxpayer funds, and that they have been entrusted by the United Nations and many governments to seek best ways forward to properly conserve global wildlife resources. Publishing a highly biased report like this is not compliant with the IUCN mandate that requires a certain “balance” to be struck to properly evaluate ways forward to guide wildlife conservation?

Let me give you just one example of manipulation of statistics in the IUCN report. On page 15, they list the “income” to the Tanzania Wildlife Division as being $11 million from trophy hunting in 2015/2016 versus $3 million from photographic tourism. In other words attempting to show us that income from trophy hunting is about four times more important than income from photographic tourism?

Actually, tourism to Tanzania accounts for 5.1% of GDP, provides 467,000 direct jobs and employs 12.2% of the workforce indirectly. The tourism industry to Tanzania is worth $1.36 billion annually, so therefore the meagre $11 million contributed by trophy hunting is just 0.8% of the total income.

And that 0.8% comes at a consumptive cost of thousands of animals “harvested” by trophy hunters annually. Is that the best use of wildlife resources in terms of sustainable returns? I would suggest not.

In conclusion, I would hope that this IUCN report is seen by MEPs for what it is and that the glaring errors become not only apparent to the European Parliament but also to all of us reading this “report”.


http://www.lionaid.org/news/2016/04/the-iucn-comes-out-once-again-in-support-of-trophy-hunting.htm

 

[Pheroze]

This critique does not accurately comment on the report. To argue that trophy hunting is a small part of the tourism sector is irrelevant. The issues are 1. how are funds generated to conserve wildlife; and 2, which alternatives do the best job at promoting conservation. The IUCN analysis proves that tourism by trophy hunters generates the most direct income and results in the largest gain for conservation. That is the important point.

The failure to recognize that a recurring revenue of $11 million dollars annually is a benefit to the country undermines the credibility of this critique by Lion Aid.

Finally, the critique fails to identify and present the case for alternatives. This omission is telling as Lion Aid cannot present a constructive response to the IUCN report.

The only objection being made in this critique is that there is consumptive use of wildlife. But, every country in the world relies on the consumptive use of animals. The related industries are enormous and part of every economy.

 

[Royal27]

AH needs a references quick link to put these quality articles in a place easy to find. Like the new posts button, call it "library ". Also, there are numerous references in this article that merit their own listing; I learned something about polar bear management today!

A stickied section to move all of the really hard hitting articles to, having them all in one place....

I wonder who could make such a thing happen???

@AfricaHunting.com

 

[AfricaHunting.com]

A stickied section to move all of the really hard hitting articles to, having them all in one place....

I wonder who could make such a thing happen???

@AfricaHunting.com

@Royal27, Thanks and need to think about that one.