Many people argue that the best way to preserve a species is to put in on an endangered list and ban anyone from shooting it or trading it. That way the animal vanishes from the black market. Right? Well, not exactly. Placing total bans on hunting endangered species only fuels peoples' desires to hunt one or obtain a living specimen. It is a natural human reaction to want something that is forbidden.

A more feasible solution to the problem of protecting endangered species is allowing limited hunting of the particular animal--for a steep price. Placing a large price tag on the living animal encourages natives of whatever region to protect the animal for they have a clear financial stake in its wellbeing. If a cheetah, for instance, wanders onto a farmer's land and tries to prey on a cattle calf, the farmer will instinctually shoot it. But if that farmer can charge $20,000 for a Westerner to come and shoot one of these animals every year, then he will be encouraged to protect all of the cheetahs that live on his property. By sacrificing a few animals, you are preserving the viability of the entire population. So, in essence, controlled hunting can have a very positive impact on populations of endangered species.

quote:

Originally posted by NuShoesAgain:
Wrong. I work for a non-profit that tries to protect species by promoting ecotourism. The idea is that, instead of allowing animals to be hunted or fished, we promote people to go see or dive with the animals instead. It works; rather than have an animal killed, which nets a one-time income for both the hunter/fisherman and to government, ecotourism is turns animals into a "gift that keeps on giving".

Unfortunately, ecotourism won't work with all species; just ones that are of interest to humans. But endangered species are likely to be one that would benefit from this approach to their protection.

Yes! That's another great alternative! I hadn't thought of that when I was writing the previous post, thanks for bringing it up.

Wrong. I work for a non-profit that tries to protect species by promoting ecotourism. The idea is that, instead of allowing animals to be hunted or fished, we promote people to go see or dive with the animals instead. It works; rather than have an animal killed, which nets a one-time income for both the hunter/fisherman and to government, ecotourism is turns animals into a "gift that keeps on giving".

Unfortunately, ecotourism won't work with all species; just ones that are of interest to humans. But endangered species are likely to be one that would benefit from this approach to their protection.

Funny how we haven't stooped to limited hunting of endangered species in America. Granted, we don't use their body parts for pseudo-homeopathic purposes, but we do have the same predation problem, namely with wolves. The non-profit organization Defenders of Wildlife reimburses farmers who have lost cattle/sheep to wolf predation. That's a much better solution, in my opinion, since it doesn't encourage scamming and also because it's fair and humane.

I have heard of only one example where something like limited hunting has worked (and I haven't researched it fully so I'm not even sure if it really has worked) and that's in the case of African elephants. This was discussed briefly on 20/20 on one of those "Myths, Lies and Straight Talk" episodes with John Stossel. They pretty much said that the elephant populations were higher in the areas that had limited hunting as opposed to those that didn't (i.e. the ones that banned all hunting). Because there was money in it, the people were more motivated to protect the elephants. A pretty crappy motivation in my opinion, since wildlife conservation should be something one does because they have a respect and appreciation for wildlife, not out of greed; but I guess that's the kind of world we live in today (a greedy one). Again, I haven't looked into the issue at all sides yet, and there is little doubt that there was at least some bias in the 20/20 report.

Allowing limited hunting of endangered species because "they're going to do it anyway" reminds me of the whole thing with illegal drugs. People buy and do them whether they're legal or not, so why not legalize them?!? So what if a few thousand people die from overdosing, they were going to do it anyway! Population control, I say!
*sarcasm*

quite true doc, the reason rhino's are mainly going extinct is that rhino horn is prized as a medicine in several asiastic cultures

Great, so I'm a farmer. I can either get 20,000-40,000 a year through allowing annual hunting. Or I can get 200,000 at once by allowing everyone in to kill the cheetahs at will. Guess which one I'm likely to take. Yeah I could make more money in the long run, but I could also make a hell of a lot of money NOW. You mentioned human nature in your post, I think you need to look at all aspects of it before going off with a theory like that.

Consider also that the hunter/poacher could STILL go out and shoot the animal for free. If they're willing to break the law now, why wouldn't they do it in the future?

And thanks also for saying that a "Westerner" could pay the farmer. A huge chunk, dare I say a majority of poaching is driven by huge markets in Asia that think rare animal substances are aphrodesiacs, medicines, etc.