|
Actually, although I loath what they did, the fact is that the majority of funding used to preserve wildlife refuges, and pay for anti-poaching efforts, comes from the selling of hunting licenses and expeditions. If that industry did not exist, there would be far fewer of those animals around today, if any.
"Conservation for animals requires land and support, and in most cases also requires money. Legal hunting of the rhino in Africa is one such case. For the population of rhino to thrive, land needs to be set aside, a wildlife refuge. With hunters willing to pay up to R1 million (over a million USD) to hunt a white rhino, the population of white rhinos would receive greater benefits than banning hunting of them all together.
When Kenya banned elephant hunting in 1970 the poaching of the elephants increased at a significant rate. Spectators do not travel very far to view a small number of animals, where hunters will travel very far to hunt one animal.
The hunting industry brings in over $6 billion annually, and with this comes money for conservation, and for the poor communities such as Makhasa where a wildlife reserve has been created.
The industry’s support of the hunt comes after international rhino conservationist Dr Ian Player also defended it this week. On Tuesday, Player said legal hunting had made a significant contribution to the recovery of the formerly critically endangered species.
“The hunters have played a big role in the recovery of the big white rhino,” said Player.
By having a legal hunt for the rhino, not only are funds created for conservation, the conservation officials can manage the rhino population. Conservation officials are the ones choosing which rhino will be harvested after research. By allowing the legal hunt of rhinos a lot more good than harm is the end result. From The Saturday Star."
..
|