Study Casts Doubt on Theory That Legal Hunting Reduces Poaching

[EspressoBuzz]

Study Casts Doubt on Theory That Legal Hunting Reduces Poaching

 

Government wildlife authorities and some conservation groups have for years argued that allowing some legal hunting can help reduce the illegal killing of threatened carnivores like wolves and grizzly bears.

Their theory — though there has been little scientific research to support it — has been that legalizing hunting helps reduce resentment among landowners, increase support for conservation and decrease poaching.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/science/legal-hunting-poaching-wolves.html?_r=0

[Caveman]

Perhaps it's true in the US.  I still firmly believe that legal hunting in impoverished countries like those in Africa cuts down on poaching though.  When hunting is allowed in an impoverished country, you increase demand for other services.  You need guides, trackers, cooks, entertainment, laborers, etc.  The employment opportunities surrounding these operations gives the animals an economic value they would not otherwise have and incentivizes protection by locals where they ordinarily couldn't be bothered.    

[Skillet]

"New York times" might as well be "The National Enquirer". Everything has a lefty slant, & all stories are written to further a leftist agenda. Just sayin.

[NFA-ADK]

Poacher is going to poach!  Just like a criminal could care less what laws you make because he does not obey them.  Otherwise I would have to agree with Wildcats 160 that in poor countries it creates jobs and helps protect animals.  Did not read the article as they are politically motivated. 

 

[Curmudgeon]

Perhaps it's true in the US.  I still firmly believe that legal hunting in impoverished countries like those in Africa cuts down on poaching though.  When hunting is allowed in an impoverished country, you increase demand for other services.  You need guides, trackers, cooks, entertainment, laborers, etc.  The employment opportunities surrounding these operations gives the animals an economic value they would not otherwise have and incentivizes protection by locals where they ordinarily couldn't be bothered.    

 

The monetary benefits from legal hunting of big game in Africa presents one of the biggest quandaries for anti-hunters. If anyone is interested in how to tie their brains in knots, this Radio Lab podcast is worth a listen - http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/

 

[Padre86]

Like someone else said, criminals will be criminals...if someone decides to say FU to the conservation and hunting regs and go do their own thing, that's what they'll do.

 

This study is speculation at best, because hunting is allowed in the US and North America in general, and thus we are not in the situation where outright bans or restrictive legislation would motivate massive numbers of hunters to go the illegal route and poach animals that are off limits.

 

This is speculation on my part, albeit logical speculation, but if North America did in fact ditch its current wildlife management model and enact an outright ban on all forms of hunting, I would bet on 2 things:

1) There would be a lot more people breaking the law to poach animals illegally.

2) The various state and federal government agencies would be spending a lot more money on enforcement (while also losing out on a lot of their income from licensing fees).

 

As for hunting in foreign, impoverished countries, I can see both sides of the story.  There certainly are some countries and areas where poaching is rampant and/or legal hunting is not being managed properly in a way that will allow for sustaining of the targeted population.

 

On the other hand, there are documented cases where structured, well-regulated legal hunting of certain rare species (the Black Rhino comes to mind) has motivated local efforts to preserve those animals from extinction:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-12-09/hunters-paying-150-000-to-kill-an-endangered-rhino-may-save-the-species

[The_Real_TCIII]

"New York times" might as well be "The National Enquirer". Everything has a lefty slant, & all stories are written to further a leftist agenda. Just sayin.

The Enquirer has a much better reputation the past ten years or so, not even exaggerating. NYT is a joke 

[moog5050]

Perhaps it's true in the US.  I still firmly believe that legal hunting in impoverished countries like those in Africa cuts down on poaching though.  When hunting is allowed in an impoverished country, you increase demand for other services.  You need guides, trackers, cooks, entertainment, laborers, etc.  The employment opportunities surrounding these operations gives the animals an economic value they would not otherwise have and incentivizes protection by locals where they ordinarily couldn't be bothered.    

 

I am not sure it really reduces the efforts to poach, but legal hunting does provide the resources required to fight poaching, which may reduce the amount of actual poaching to some extent.  Was watching a show on Sat. where the local authorities in SA dart rhinos and remove their horns to prevent poaching.  No horns, not worth poaching.  The horns are worth up to $150k in asia.  They said soon it may be a real rarity to see a rhino in the wild with its horn.  But better than extinct.

[Bowguy 1]

Guys understand something studies are only samples of some outcomes some of the time. I'll at the risk of offending give a simple sample with my saying not whether I agree. Only a study example.

If you did a poll (study) about same sex marriage. You did it in Grenich village, sorry if i butchered that spelling, anyway say you sampled that area, or even lots of new york city for instance you get overwhelming support for it.

Now say that same poll (opinion study) was given in the Bible Belt would the outcome be different?

Support for hunting, weigh city against country folks.

Now say they say they took a random sampling from many areas, again just ask the right people n you'll get your desired answer.

[Uptown Redneck]

Guys understand something studies are only samples of some outcomes some of the time. I'll at the risk of offending give a simple sample with my saying not whether I agree. Only a study example.

If you did a poll (study) about same sex marriage. You did it in Grenich village, sorry if i butchered that spelling, anyway say you sampled that area, or even lots of new york city for instance you get overwhelming support for it.

Now say that same poll (opinion study) was given in the Bible Belt would the outcome be different?

Support for hunting, weigh city against country folks.

Now say they say they took a random sampling from many areas, again just ask the right people n you'll get your desired answer.

That's why relying upon polls is dangerous, yet most of us cite them when the results favor our opinion.

[EspressoBuzz]

Bowguy is right about surveys but a study (this study) uses the numbers, of animals poached. of animals hunted and the hunting regulations in the same area. They did not go out and ask people in these areas if they thought poaching went down and why.

 

All studies have to provide information about how the info was gathered and where, etc. Even surveys have to provide some info as to who was polled , age, income, party, location and how many polled.

 

Often the media to make a story exciting will pull out a thread of the study and over emphasize the point but do the studies information and conclusions a dis-service.