Hunter as a means of preserving nature

 One of the methods used by the reserve authorities so far is "thinning", every few years they eliminate a given number of elephants and thus maintain a population of a desired size. Are there alternatives to this dilution?

In the Kruger Reserve in DRAP, the elephants multiply to an extent beyond the carrying capacity of the area where they are, the result... the elephants break fences and invade agricultural areas, cause damage to the reserve's neighbors and endanger their lives, what are we doing? What can be desirable and should be done?
One of the ways the reserve authorities have taken so far is "thinning", every few years they eliminate a given number of elephants and thus maintain a population of a desired size, every time the time comes for "thinning" a heated public debate arises in which the "animal lovers" oppose the killing, without Offer a practical solution.
One of the other possible solutions is the transfer of elephants to private reserves when the owners of the reserves pay for the transfer and for the elephants, the payments are high and the owners of the reserves are looking for ways to reimburse the expenses, an accepted and well-known way is to open the farm for public visits, visiting private reserves is common, accepted, expensive and prestigious. The farm owners can get additional income by selling the animals in the (private) reserve to "trophy" hunters, hunters who pay huge sums for the right to shoot a wild animal.

Legal hunting of wild animals is accepted in East and South African countries also in public areas, the state allows a "spoils" hunter for considerable sums - thousands of dollars per animal - and the money is dedicated to nature conservation, i.e. a small number of "prestige" wild animals - lions, elephants, tigers , buffaloes and others, pay with their lives to enable / finance the keeping and protection of many animals and important reserves. Data show that in 23 countries, about 18000 "tourists" paid a total of 200 million dollars for the right to hunt wild animals, a large part of the hunting trips were held on private lands.

Since in most African countries the demand for agricultural land is increasing for a growing population, the authorities are faced with the constant problem of: what to prefer? Nature reserves or agricultural areas? It is clear that the pressure of the citizens (voters) of the countries is increasing and thus nature will be harmed, when large private reserves are established, the pressure of the population on them is not so heavy, therefore the more private reserves there are in the countries, the greater the chances and possibilities for the conservation and protection of wild animals, but reserves are large, even when they Open (for a fee) to visiting tourists constitute a heavy financial burden, the solution used by the owners of the reserves is to open them to "spoils" hunters, of course the hunters are separated from the visitors by a different schedule and areas of activity far from each other. Similarly, it is possible and there is hunting activity in the state's reserves, an activity that benefits the residents neighboring the reserves and thus reduces the pressure.

Recently, there is an awakening among "animal lovers", an awakening / opposition to the "cruel" activity of a hunter. I qualify the concepts in quotation marks not because of reservations about animal lovers, but because of the need to understand that between the love of animals / the love of nature, and the preservation / protection of wild animals and their environment, there is no perfect parallel, it is clear that the conservationists love nature and animals, it is not always clear that the "animal lovers" It is understood that loving animals does not always go hand in hand with preserving nature, the best examples are the concern of "animal lovers" for dogs and cats that have become feral, meaning that they live in wild / wild conditions, it is clear to every conservationist that they must be removed from the system in the most effective way and method, animal lovers demand "Humanity" and compassion are important qualities, but they do not always correspond to the requirements of nature conservation.

Likewise in the case of a "booty" hunter, good, important and famous among nature conservationists necessarily recognize that the population of species that breed in closed reserves must be "thinned out". And above that, in the growing need to give economic justification to the reserves and to the population of wild animals and plants, economic justification exists when a (human) population in the areas surrounding the reserves is established from the reserves.
This is by building and maintaining tourist facilities, or by providing services to "booty" hunters, trackers, skinners and taxidermists, porters and others, all of whom come from local villages, in addition to this, the meat from the game is given to the residents and thus everyone (except for the hunted animal) makes a profit .

Of course, in order for the hunter's income to flow for the benefit of the residents and for the benefit of nature conservation, a supervisory and regulatory mechanism is needed, such mechanisms exist in countries in southern Africa and East Africa, now the governments of the countries are called to oblige the hunters and the owners of the reserves to declare their commitment to diverting the income to nature conservation, as well as to declare their commitment to the proper management of the hunter, while taking care of the numbers and species of the hunted animals as well as preventing unnecessary harm/cruelty, so for example there is a call to ban the hunter with a bow and arrow, a form of hunting that causes serious injuries without immediately killing the animal, opposition is expressed against the method of "cage hunters"
Canned Hunting Animals are kept in cages, drugged and released into the field only after it is clear to the liberators that the hunter is capable of hunting the animal whose senses are dark.

European and American hunters who killed animals en masse from the end of the 19th century until the sixties of the twentieth century gave the "booty" hunter a bad reputation, but since the seventies nature conservation laws have been enforced at a reasonable level and the need to "dilute" the population of various animals in reserves Various. A "booty" hunter in previous years brought a number of species to "almost extinction", but a controlled and balanced "booty" hunter in recent years made it possible to finance the return to the wild of the blunt wildebeest and the mountain zebra, many and the return to the wild of the broad-lipped rhinoceros ("white" ) Southern whose population is estimated today at 11000 individuals. as well as the establishment of "sanctuaries" for wild animals.

I have no understanding of the initial (primitive) need of the "hero hunter" to engage in the "sport of the hunter", what's more, the practitioners are not hungry, but if those "sportsmen" are willing to pay a fortune for the right to engage in the "sport", a fortune that will be directed to nature conservation, then The goodness of nature pushes the opposition in favor of hunting. A strange situation is when hunting/killing wild animals is a way to preserve nature and those who claim that their desire is for the good of wild animals are engaged in "dilution". However, it is important to remember that the vast majority of the conservation areas are managed by a new interface, few are the natural/pristine areas where there is no human intervention, therefore it is necessary to bring the intervention to a place where the new interface will meet the requirements of proper conservation.
Dr. Assaf Rosenthal,
Tour guide/leader in Africa and South America.
For details: Tel. 0505640309 / 077-6172298,
Email: assaf@eilatcity.co.il