stdreb27
Active Member
I love argument that fly in the face of conventional wisdom...
In southern Africa, countries have followed the philosophy of sustainable use. They have issued permits to sport hunters to kill a limited number of elephants that are pre-selected according to factors like age and ---. They cannot shoot breeding animals, for example.
Sport hunting produces significant income through hunting fees, safari costs (guides, accommodation, trophy fees, etc.) and this is reinvested into conservation programmes. Local people support it because it provides secure employment.
The result is that in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana, elephant populations are well-stocked and healthy, while incidences of poaching have been kept to low levels.
By contrast, Kenya takes a protectionist approach. Killing elephants is prohibited and the country steadfastly argues against international trade in ivory.
An unintended consequence is that poaching is encouraged because local people receive little added value from the elephants and, instead, see a local resource going to waste.
In some areas people suffer when elephants destroy crops and homes. Habitat damage from dense populations also negatively impacts many other species.
Conservation in Kenya has become largely a law enforcement operation and, inevitably, this is a drain on limited local resources.
While elephant populations have recovered, poaching remains a problem and, in stark contrast to southern Africa, people have to be paid to shoot problem animals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6091334.stm
In southern Africa, countries have followed the philosophy of sustainable use. They have issued permits to sport hunters to kill a limited number of elephants that are pre-selected according to factors like age and ---. They cannot shoot breeding animals, for example.
Sport hunting produces significant income through hunting fees, safari costs (guides, accommodation, trophy fees, etc.) and this is reinvested into conservation programmes. Local people support it because it provides secure employment.
The result is that in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana, elephant populations are well-stocked and healthy, while incidences of poaching have been kept to low levels.
By contrast, Kenya takes a protectionist approach. Killing elephants is prohibited and the country steadfastly argues against international trade in ivory.
An unintended consequence is that poaching is encouraged because local people receive little added value from the elephants and, instead, see a local resource going to waste.
In some areas people suffer when elephants destroy crops and homes. Habitat damage from dense populations also negatively impacts many other species.
Conservation in Kenya has become largely a law enforcement operation and, inevitably, this is a drain on limited local resources.
While elephant populations have recovered, poaching remains a problem and, in stark contrast to southern Africa, people have to be paid to shoot problem animals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6091334.stm
