"commercial" hunter

The continued demand for elephant tusks and rhinoceros horns as idol medicines is an impetus for criminals to poach elephants and rhinos in quantities that threaten to wipe out populations. At the same time, there are countries in Africa that allow hunting wild animals. Is there a difference?

In the past I have already referred to a commercial or legal hunter of wild animals. When considering for or against the hunter, several factors must be taken into account, the first of which (in my opinion) is the fact that today almost all open areas are managed. That is, in areas that have been damaged and affected by human activity, actions are taken to preserve and maintain the existing with the understanding that it is necessary to preserve a natural environment, and sometimes actions are also taken to bring back elements that have disappeared. For example, bringing back wild animals that have disappeared, flooding humid areas that have dried up or planting in areas where trees have been cut down.

Two factors that are intertwined are the need for sources of funding for the guarding activities and the "built-in need" of those with money to prove their masculinity through a "masculine" activity that is expressed in the "sport" of hunting.

If in the past hunting was an existential need, today this need exists only in few and isolated populations (hunter gatherers in Africa or Inuit in the Arctic Circle). Already from the form in which I present the "sport" it is clear what is related to the subject, but in order to preserve and preserve nature, a lot of money is needed, some of which comes from tourism, but it turns out that in many cases, in large areas that are not developed, the "sport" of hunting brings in much more money than tourism.

Another factor that integrates into the environmental system stems from the fact that a large part of the reserves are fragmented areas surrounded by settlements and agricultural areas, as the human population grows, there is more pressure on open areas and the friction between wildlife and people increases. That is, in order to protect the animals on the one hand and on the other hand to prevent them from entering settlements and damaging agricultural crops, the reserves must be managed and a population should be maintained that matches their size and does not exceed it. For this, the need arises to "dilute" animals.

The need for thinning is connected with the hunter's lust, since it is possible to give or sell hunters permission to hunt in what will be called "trophy hunting" hereafter, when usually the permission is to hunt old males, with the additional justification being that these males are nearing their end anyway, which will come from starvation or by young competitors. This is how the managers of the reserve prevent unnecessary suffering and fighting, that is, the assumption is that removing old individuals from the population is beneficial to the entire population. Since the old individuals have larger horns or a thicker mane, they are "suitable" to be used as a prize on the wall of the house of a wealthy lust. This is how the desire for "sport" is combined with the administrative need of the natural environment.

These musings came up again when I read about a "safari club" in Dallas that advertised a tender for the sale of a license to hunt a rhinoceros. The money from the sale is intended for rhino conservation activities in Namibia, it is clear that the publication led to widespread public opposition (including death threats to the hunter who wins the tender). The objection centers on the question "How can a rhinoceros hunter be legal"?
Is there no obligation to ban every hunter?
The activity against wild poachers in Africa unites local parties and foreign organizations. At the same time, legal hunting of endangered species and rare animals continues. Nature conservation authorities in several countries sell licenses to hunt antelopes but also elephants, rhinos, lions and tigers.

In many countries in Africa there is a wild hunter who harms animals. In those countries there are growing frictions between agriculture and animals. Namibia is different, advanced legislation allows villagers to engage in "wildlife management" as a source of income, this is the situation in private and public areas. Residents are allowed to sell "bounty hunting" licenses, as well as to hunt animals that will serve as a source of meat, provided that healthy and sustainable populations exist. In addition to this, there is the relocation of animals from saturated areas to areas where there is a need to renew the populations. Those villagers or owners of private farms are also engaged in tourism - establishing lodges and guiding tourists.

The income from all of these enables the establishment of agricultural farms, when it is clear to the farmers that what made the establishment of the farms possible are the activities related to wildlife. There is no conflict of interest between agriculture and wildlife.

For the residents of the open areas, the formula is simple and clear: "Wild animals are a source of income, without wild animals there is no income, therefore it is necessary to ensure the sustainable existence of wild animals." As a result, residents see every wild hunter as a thief who steals their property and income, and from this it is clear that the residents are the guardians of the animals.

The result of the legislation and policy is that Namibia has healthy populations of wild animals, including those in other countries that are hunted and destroyed. That is why there are those who think that it is appropriate to implement a similar policy in other countries. "The more wild animals are used, the higher the chances of conservation. If there is no sustainable use of the wild animals - they will disappear.'

A bounty hunter takes out only about 1% of the population. The activity of the bounty hunter does not require development and infrastructure and yet brings in a lot of money (a rhinoceros hunter brings in about a million dollars). This money is used for development for the benefit of the residents and conservation activities.

In the background, the thought always continues and haunts: "What is your name?" Who are you, the person who takes the authority to "thin" and engage in the "sport" of the hunter? The answer to this is that it is the moral duty of the person who causes injury and damage to do everything to repair it and without a choice the repair must be painful.
And as we have already said: the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.