The food needs of villagers can be handled in far more economical and sustainable ways. They likely need a steady stream of lentils far more than they need an occasional dead lion carcass.
If that were the case then there would be a different solution in place, no? They
don't have enough food which is
why they turn to poaching for either food or money to buy food.
What is charged for safaris and how that money is doled out is, of course, out of our hands. But my understanding of the biological needs is that the animals would be better served by higher priced or more photo safaris than by hunting.
In most cases this just isn't true. And how, exactly, do you propose you increase the amount of photo safaris - especially if you raise the price? People will pay for what they want to pay for. That's something you can't change.
I would have to see a pretty solid economic breakdown to accept that assertion. My prior understanding is that hunting safaris may be intended or claimed to have the effects you claim, but the reality is that they are not effective enough in providing protection to justify the losses. Hunting safaris simply don't pull their own weight.
Here's some things I think are rather important to understand: Most safaris are not safaris that involve taking the Big 5. The reason is that it's
incredibly expensive to kill a lion, leopard, elephant or rhino and the numbers that are allowed to be taken are incredibly small. Quite simply, not terribly many are killed because not many are allowed to be killed.
The only member of the Big 5 that's killed in any number is the Cape Buffalo and there are quite a few of those running around. The rest? It's not common.
Very often leopards, lions and even elephants that are harvested are what are considered 'problem animals'. They kill livestock, people or both and the villagers ask the PH to take care of the problem. The animal is killed, used and money is made.
Elephants are also regaining sufficient population in their areas or their environment is being depleted at a sufficient rate thatnumbers really
are too high for sustainability in those specific places. It's important to keep in mind that while Area X may have 5 elephants barely holding on, Area Y may have 5 too many to maintain a healthy heard. Males are also the only animals harvested unless a female becomes a problem animal.
Rhino are, in some places, open for hunting even though their population is pretty small. The reason here is money - but not why you'd assume. The only animals that are allowed to be taken are old males who are past breeding age. These animals offer nothing to perpetuate the species and, in fact, are a danger to it now that the numbers are what they are. They are typically very aggressive and can kill people or other rhino if they're in the mood. Additionally, as they're no longer suitable for breeding, they use resources that rhino capable of breeding have a need for.
So yeah, the picture is bigger than a lot of people seem to understand. Again, if you think it's as easy as booking a flight and a safari to go and kill a lion, try it. Tell me how many mortgages it'll take for you to get it done if you can even book a hunt to do it.
This is obviously an unfortunate situation all its own - only the rich can do it. However, I much prefer someone doing something than people whining about it and doing nothing.
Note that I'm not against hunting in general. In most of North America, deer are by no means endangered, and frequently overcrowd because they lack predators. By all means, hunt them for sport. But vulnerable and endangered species need solutions that don't include killing the very thing you intend to preserve.
If you support hunting to curb overpopulation than you support hunting lion. Again, the regions where this is legal and permitted have more than enough lion - which is why the hunts are allowed at all. The enemy is habitat destruction. A lot has been done in that regard already and we need to manage populations with that in mind ... kind of what the gov'ts over there are trying to do.
By the way, I hunt deer to make sure there's always deer. Money for tags, ammo and other stuff I buy goes to the Pittman-Robertson fund and money from that fund is used to do things like reserve land so that it cannot be developed. In fact, hunting is basically the reason there are so many deer today. There's plenty of evidence that shows that conservation programs paid for by hunters and that include hunting as a population control measure have aided in the restoration of many species in America. Deer, turkey and even elk. Thanks to hunting, elk have been returned to PA and KY - so successfully that they've opened limited seasons to hunt them. Hunting isn't just about killing things or even killing them to make sure there aren't too many. There's a lot more to it.
By that logic, we solve the problem by simply removing *all* the habitat, and reduce the population to zero! Problem solved!
Sure ... I mean, if you wanna take it to a pointless extreme. Look, we have the habitat we have and we have the number of animals living in that habitat that we do. Management dictates we keep a certain number of animals that habitat size determines is possible to keep. It's math.
We can cry over spilt milk all we like but that doesn't change what must be done. Obviously we need more habitat but that's not something we currently have. The animals alive today can't wait for a tomorrow that may never come. We deal with reality, not ideal situations.
If the goal is to preserve the species, and the problem in doing that is habitat loss, the solution is not reduction in numbers, but in reversing the habitat loss. You may need to do some population management in the short term if overcrowding occurs, but unless *everywhere* is overcrowded, relocation is a better response than hunting.
Sure, you could relocate. Thing is, nobody over there wants to pay for it. It's been done in America and it's worked, too (far too well as far as wolves are concerned, as a matter of fact), but it's time consuming and resource/expertise heavy. If you don't have enough money to staff anti-poaching units despite donations and money from safaris, etc, well, you don't have enough money to start relocating animals.
Again, we deal with reality and not ideal situations.
Well, let's find a way to increase the volume on the less damaging eco-tourism safaris, rather than kill species that are in trouble!
That's an option and one I'd personally be totally fine with. Despite how I may have presented myself, I have no desire to ever kill a lion, leopard, elephant or rhino. Hell, I don't wanna even kill a bear. Not my style - too much respect for the predators, I guess. The thing is, we can't wait for a tomorrow that may never come. In the meantime, this is the best we have and it'd be insane to stop the only thing we have going to help.
