If I call myself a writer on science and nature, I need to
say something about Cecil. It's a tragedy this lion was killed, and a crime the
way it was lured. Everyone involved should face appropriate legal punishment.
This is a moment we should seize, though, to talk about all the issues
involved. Should we allow any trophy hunting?
Hunters argue the huge license fees support
often-impoverished local communities: opponents argue that money ends up with
corrupt officials instead. The lion is, at the least, a threatened species:
it's not in imminent danger of vanishing, but its numbers go down every year,
with the most vigorous animals, the huge males, being hunted the most. I'd say
the US should go beyond requirements of the CITES treaty and ban import of lion
trophies as we do of elephant tusks. A TIME magazine piece notes some blame
should go to Zimbabwean officials who created the poverty in their
once-thriving nation in a political land-grab that broke up productive farms
and game ranches because most were white-owned, plunging the whole nation into
extreme poverty where people will do anything for money or food. The leads to
another issue: should we give so much ink and airtime to Cecil in a land where
thousands of children are starving? I have no pity for the professional
poachers who make millions supplying traditional-medicine markets: shooting on
sight is a tempting remedy. But there are local people whose children are
hungry and will do anything, including poach a lion.
I don't have the answers to all these issues, but we should
talk about them. Mourn Cecil, but not only Cecil: think about how to prevent
poaching, balance human and animal needs, and build a sustainable future for
all.
Since part of the problem is the poor and corrupt system
prevailing in the nation housing the park from which Cecil was lured, I have an
idea I trot out every now and then for international parks: start with a
half-dozen wild areas the conservation world can agree are vital and create an
agency (UN, maybe, or something seen as less corrupt, like the OECD, which
isn't thought of as a conservation agency but could be become one in the
ecotourism era), to fund and administer on a continuing basis on an equal
footing with the nation (if there is one) owning the site. The Galapagos and
Okavango might be good places to start because of the universal recognition of
their importance: you could also start with the most endangered spots instead:
Conservation International maintains a list. There would be all kinds of
problems in practice, but exporting "America's best idea" on a
cooperative international seems wiser than having so much preservation depend
on year-to-year grants and political changes.
4 comments:
Very little hunting... even trophy hunting ends with the animal not being eaten. What is labeled as trophy hunting 99% of the time means the meat goes to the locals in Africa. So they get the meat, and jobs and a boost to their economy. Without so called trophy hunting they generally decimate their local wildlife populations because they feel for some reason the need to eat too.
The fact that this lion was poached illegally is going to result in a lose lose for everyone. The local will not be the benefit from the supply of meat which is greater amounts because the populations are managed. The guides and trackers and cooks and such will lose their jobs now that fewer people will be hunting Africa for fear of having their lives ruined because of it like the dentist has had his. The various countries in Africa that recieve fees from these hunters will shrivel. And the animal populations will again be subject to more poaching for food and ivory because there is going to be less money to fund the local people that protect the animals. It is higly likely that the very locals will be employeed as poachers because they know the local game better than anyone.
It will be interesting no doubt. But I don't see anyone coming out as a winner in this.
Thanks for filling in this side of the argument.
Post a Comment