Hunting

Question 1

Outline the contrasting arguments of hunting?

Answer 1

Utilitarian vs. Preservationist - that the ends justify the means and people need an incentive vs. Nature having an inherent value
Biocentrism versus anthropocentrism
Pragmatism - if it works then do it ( in this case question becomes does it work…?)

Question 2

Singer 1979

Answer 2

Anti-hunting ethics

Theory of “having an interest”, highlighting wildlife’s capacity to feel pleasure and main

Question 3

Regan, 1983

Answer 3

Recreational hunting violates animal “rights”

Question 4

Scruton, 1998

Answer 4

Hunting for fun turns what otherwise might be acceptable into something that is wrong

Question 5

Wittemyer et al., 2014

Answer 5

Global illegal wildlife trade has reached alarming levels
E.g. for elephants illegal killing were unsustainable for the species between 2010 and 2012 - peaking at 8% in 2011, which is 40,000 elephants a year - illegal killing increased after 2008 and was correlated strongly with the local market ivory price

Question 6

Dickinson et al., 2009

Answer 6

Recreational hunting during the colonial period led to huge population decline, and an increase in local extinctions e.g. the near-extinction of the American bison

Question 7

Who did colonial powers blame for declining populations?

Answer 7

Local communities were blamed
As a result they were banned from hunting whilst colonial elites were still permitted
Colonial administrators failed to acknowledge that it was the dominance of European powers - over-consumption, modern weapons etc. - that resulted in the declines

Question 9

How did colonial powers respond to declining populations?

Answer 9

Fears that over-hunting would diminish stocks of game for the future led to the establishment of conservation organisations and national park at the start of the 20th c.
These were set up at the expense of displacing indigenous communities

Question 10

MacKenzie, 1988

Answer 10

Hunting came to have symbolic meaning rather than any practical use - part of “self-defining elite”
Certain animals were acceptable for noble men to hunt
Killing of animals provided a ritualised activity for displaying dominance over nature and inferior social classes
A true gentleman hunted for sport, and “sustainability” - whereas lowlifes hunted to consume and destroy

Question 11

Jalais, 2008

Answer 11

In India the British perpetuated the “regal” status of the tigers and their relationship with Indian royalty so that in hunting them they could be seen to be successfully dominating the sub-continent’s royal animal (and ergo their royalty)

Question 12

How do colonial ideas of hunting perpetrate into modern day? (2)

Answer 12

1) The exclusion of locals continues - whereby locals hunting is considered “poaching”
2) Western conservation is still displacing indigenous communities onto land that cannot sustain them - this leads to environmental degradation (which they are then blamed for for overpopulating and being conservative)

Question 13

Duffy, 2000

Answer 13

Africans are often forced to poach as a means of survival due to being kicked off their own land and often this acts as a form of protest

Question 14

Mariki et al., 2015

Answer 14

Look at an incident in Tanzania in 2009 (West Kilimanjaro) whereby a group of villagers chased a herb of elephants over a cliff
Conservation was occurring in their locality without local communities having any significant influence on decision-making
Generated feelings of marginalisation and disempowerment
Thus this act was an act of “everyday resistance” as a means of protest (Scott, 1985)

Question 15

What is CBNRM

Answer 15

Community-based natural resource management
This is the most widely advocated pro-hunting scheme
(But important to note that it is not just hunting e.g. ecotourism also fits in)

Question 16

Gibson and Marks, 1995

Answer 16

CBNRM originated in the 1970s as a response to the need for more effective conservation strategies and a recognition that local communities have to be involved in decision making and management in order for them to work

Question 17

How does CBNRM of hunting work in theory?

Answer 17

Allowing SUSTAINABLE hunting by trophy hunters
This works by removing the same number of individuals as are added to the population through natural population growth - moreover specific individuals can be selected e.g. no longer fertile males, who have no “purpose” anymore for the wider population
Trophy hunters pay a significant amount in order to hunt selected individuals
Thus it can provide sufficient income for local communities whilst not depleting ecosystems
In principle this income should reach the household and community level - thus reducing the need to hunt as a source of income, and increasing the need to conserve animals in order to facilitate continuation of this income

Question 18

Arntzen et al. (2007)

Answer 18

2005
US$590,000 for the Sankuyo community in Botswana
This is much higher than the amounts that can be gained from ecotourism

Question 19

What are the non-material benefits of poaching?

Answer 19

Empowerment of local people
Lessened dependency on the state (and potentially international aid)
Exposure fo commercial partners and business approaches
Increased proprietorship over wildlife
CBNRM hopes that this will decrease feelings of marginalisation and thus reduce poaching as protest

Question 20

Fabricius et al. (2001)

Answer 20

At the household level the money is often not sufficient
Elite capture
In small communities (less than 100 households) or very low densities (below 20 people/km2) the income per household can be relatively substantial - however few (if any) communities engaging with CBNRM programmes fit into this framework

Question 21

Agrawal and Gibson (1999)

Answer 21

Monetary income not large enough to replace meat and cash from hunting
Studied Zambia - implementation of CBNRM schemes did not stop illegal hunting, but instead shifted their methods from firearms to snares, and to targeting of smaller (non-flagship) species

Question 22

Bwalya (2002)

Answer 22

Zambia Blue Lagoon National Park
Economic benefits and incentives were inadequate and did not have any significant effect on local behaviour and poaching in particular

Question 23

Marks (2016)

Answer 23

Ignores the cultural significance of hunting
Looks at Bisa people in Zambia’s central Luangwa Valley
Hunting is significant in the way in which they “connect to life around them”
Continued criminalisation of their hunting has increased the despondency, dependency and poverty
“Outsiders seeking to conserve significant areas must extend their cultural boundaries, experiences and vocabularies”

Question 24

Bandyopadhyay and Tembo, 2010

Answer 24

Created zones in Zambia were people and nature coexist
In recent years, Zambia Wildlife Authority has started sharing some of the revenue and responsibilities with local communities
However households don’t gain equally - those who are actively involved in decision making get more

Question 25

Ahmad, 1997

Answer 25

Bar Valley, Pakistan
Trophy hunting model - $3000 to kill an ibex - distributed amongst 240 families in the valley
Compensated for loss of wild meat consumption
Every household involved in decision making and management
It was difficult to implement at the start because no immediate gain - therefore required a lot of money to create an extensive monitoring system
However after the program was set up in 1990 uncontrolled hunting in the valley was nearly eliminated

Question 26

MacKenzie, 1997

Answer 26

Excluding indigenous communities from their own land into increasingly smaller settlements undermined the political and economic basis of these societies and deprived indigenous communities of what had once been a source of food, exchange and ceremony

Question 27

Logan and Moseley, 2002

Answer 27

The community is not homogenous

Question 28

Riehl et al. (2015)

Answer 28

Community level benefits may not extend down to the household level

Question 29

Jones, 1999

Answer 29

Botswana
San tribe
Enjoyed hunting rights through a special license system
However under new CBRNM frameworks they complain that they have been disadvantaged by losing their Special Licenses
The community where they lives was awarded a wildlife quota - but they didn’t benefit as they were not represented in the community committee

Question 30

Milner-Gillard et al. (2003)

Answer 30

Saiga antelope
A focus on male individuals had decreased the proportion of females conceiving, exacerbating an already steep population decline related to uncontrolled hunting

Question 31

Palazy et al. (2012)

Answer 31

Upgrading the IUCN status of the most vulnerable African wildlife species has been correlated with an increase in trophy prices
Could lead to exploitation of animals already at threat of extinction

Question 32

Duffy et al. (2015)

Answer 32

That forceful approaches to conservation can work (e.g. increased patrolling in Serengeti, Hilborn et al., 2006) but militarised approaches can often exacerbate conflicts
E.g. in South Africa, rhino poaching continued to rise despite increased arrests

Question 33

Rademeyer, 2012

Answer 33

Where poaching is the consequence of organised criminal networks and global commodity chains, tackling just one end of the chain will have limited impact

Question 34

Naidoo et al., 2016

Answer 34

Evaluated the benefits of tourism and hunting on 77 communal conservancies in Namibia from 1998–2013
Found that hunting started generating benefits after 3 years, and tourism after 6
Ban on trophy hunting significantly reduced the number of conservancies that could cover their operating costs, whereas eliminating income from tourism did not have a big effect
The incomes flowed into different segments of the community
Argued that the best approach is to implement these schemes together as this creates the biggest incentive - a singular focus on either hunting or tourism would reduce the value of wildlife as a competitive land-use option