Hunting ban... the results?

There is an urgent need for research that will lead to an understanding of the biology and ecology of the hunter's influence, and the trade in game-meat, say researchers who will present their findings at the World Conservation Union conference

Some time ago I wrote about the problem which is created around refugee camps in Tanzania, camps where the refugees of the armed conflicts in the area are housed. The demand for meat and the hunting habits of the refugees cause the "drying" of the camp environment, the proposal at the time was to supply meat through education to raise farm animals.

Now, in an attempt to deal with the same problem: hunting wild animals for food, a concern is being raised that a total ban on hunters who enforce on natives in rural areas will not give the desired results, but will "harm wildlife conservation efforts". According to the report of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) based in Indonesia, the trade in game meat should be regulated, not banned. The report will be submitted to the IUCN World Conservation Congress, which will be held this month in Barcelona.

The researchers of the Center for Forest Research suggest allowing hunters of animals that reproduce quickly, as examples they mention devikar (photo) and various rodents. According to them, the hunting of endangered species such as primates should be prevented. Apparently "the center for forests", what did we answer with people and animals? It turns out that the center's researchers arrived at the issue because most of the damage caused to nature and the environment is caused by deforestation, when half of Africa's forests are defined as concessions - mainly because of the "hunger" of Western countries for trees.

The mining companies open the forests to pass and the accessibility increases the movement of hunters, more hunters, more hunted animals, since the demand for game-meat is accelerating in Africa and worldwide, the same roads that enable the movement of loggers enable the close encounter between indigenous populations and the "Western world" for better or for worse .

Contrary to the common and accepted approach according to which wild animals must be protected as a primary principle, the center's researchers claim that "it is indeed necessary to protect wild animals in areas where there is a long tradition of hunting for food, this is to ensure the existence of the hunters", since without regulation and protection in a short time (50 years) hunted species will disappear, "which will cause a lack of food in (rural) populations in Africa."

More than one million tons of game meat is "collected" in Central Africa every year, meat that provides about 80% of protein and fat consumption for rural people, that is: rural populations whose main source of food is game meat, but in addition to being a direct source of food, game meat is also a source of income . Game meat is sold in urban markets throughout Africa and in many cases game meat ends up in "luxury restaurants" in the Western world. And this is where the opposition of the green bodies arises. Opposition to trade in game-meat.

According to the center's researchers: "There is an urgent need for research that will lead to an understanding of the biology and ecology of the hunter's influence, and the trade in hunter-meat." In the Congo basin, about 90% of the game is sold in the local village - that is, local food supply, a figure which, according to the center's researchers, shows that Isnar includes the trade in game-meat, will harm rural populations, according to the center's researchers: the hunter must be separated from the hunter for trade and the hunter for subsistence, "Granting the right to decide For rural populations where to hunt, when and how many animals to hunt, responsibility will be assigned to them, following which hunting will take place in a sustainable manner." According to the center, such responsibility will be positive when "the local populations understand the benefit of proper environmental management".

The center's researchers cite examples from Peru and Malaysia, where the natives were given permission to hunt and at the same time the trade in game meat was prohibited. (And I ask: Really? What would prevent a hunter from hunting more than he needs, going to the urban market and selling the "surplus?"). When the volume of the illegal trade in animals (and their parts) is estimated at 4 billion dollars, what will prevent a hunter from killing large mammals, elephants, buffaloes or gorillas, in order to sell his wares in the urban market?

How do you create a system and policy that will preserve vulnerable and sensitive species at the same time if permission is granted to hunt common species? Is there enough information to determine which species can be hunted? In what quantities? Even if restrictions and quantities are set, can they be enforced? Will the "saddlers" have information that will make it possible to differentiate between similar species, when one is allowed to hunt and the similar one is not? These questions are only a small part of the set of problems that a permit to hunt will produce, (and I say) those populations are exposed to contact with the modern world, an exposure one of whose negative consequences is the trade in game-meat.

In order to preserve nature and the environment, we need to change the direction, not supplying game meat by rural hunters to urban markets and luxury restaurants, but giving the possibility of producing meat sources for the villagers by equipping them with the necessary equipment to raise farm animals.

The report of the center's researchers calls on logging companies and various organizations to develop a policy to preserve the animals and the environment in the forests and I say: development of the conservation policy by introducing farm animals to the indigenous villages, pigs, sheep, cattle and poultry that will be a source of proteins and fats for their breeders and at the same time will be a source of income by Selling products to urban settlements.

If the rural populations consume a million tons of game meat per year, then this is an amount equivalent to about 3,000 cows, what could be simpler than giving them the opportunity to breed? As in the refugee camps, so here too the human and natural environment is already disturbed, therefore, anyone who wants to protect the existing must intervene by combining innovative factors.

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.