English Sample Paper on Killing Animals to save them is not Conservation

Killing Animals to save them is not Conservation

Scientists and conservationists claim that trophy hunting helps in funding of conservation efforts and that it does not result in ecological harm. However, pictures of hunters, smiling with their trophies, and the idea of wealthy people paying lots of money to kill rare animals just for sport are enough proof that safari hunting is a repugnant activity that has to be stopped.Hunting is about killing animals. Conservation is about saving them. The two are entirely different things.Hunting raises valid, ethical questions, but its prospective part in conservation can’t be evaluated exclusively on moral grounds. In fact, those in Africa who is to benefit from safari hunting have entirely different and every so often, incompatible views toward hunting compared to their western adversaries. It is important to know who has control over the resources and land that support game animals and who gets to benefits from these resources, and whether they can distribute in means that that aid conservation efforts (Adams, 2015).

Wealthy hunters pay large amounts to hunt the most well known game species in Africa, especially the big five — lions, buffalo, leopards, elephants, and rhinos. Many of these animals come from areas with high levels of poverty. The juxtaposition of valuable wild resources and poor people does not mean that exploitation of one element does not necessarily result in the advancement of the other. While trophy hunting may be a key source of revenue source, the trends of the population of wildlife have been verified to be steady or growing in areas where conservancies are operational. Until recently, the trend was holding even for the black rhinos, which increased in number in Namibia while declining in almost every other place on the continent. The recent sharp rise in the demand for the rhino horn has however driven the trophy hunting price so high. Not even the financial inducements given by the conservancies can protect them, and poaching also has been increasing (Flocken, 2015).

Many other conditions should be met in advance for trophy hunting to support reliable conservation efforts. These conditions include proper governance structures characterized by transparency in the laws, the regulations, and implementation and citizens who respect those laws, enough biological scientists and officers of enforcement. These, coupled with a sufficient public demand for conservation is bound to push conservation in the right direction. Where trophy hunting is unable to help in the maintenance, the landholders’ proprietary rights are weak, and other stakeholders capture benefits through, excessive fees, bureaucracy, and corruption. Since the banning of hunting in Kenya, the populations of wildlife have fallen by 80 percent (Adams, 2015). There are way too many complicated factors to point the direct cause and effect of either prohibiting or encouraging trophy hunting to this fall in wildlife populations in Kenya and any other country in southern Africa.The dynamic is however at least enough to give one hiatus when putting forward the claim that hunting is as such,not useful for wildlife.

Culpability for the fall in the wildlife populations in Kenya and all over Africa cannot at this point be pointed to trophy hunters. The main causes are loss of habitat resulting from ever expanding the human settlement, the need for agricultural land, and other types of land use that are not compatible with wildlife. This is closely trailed by unrestrained hunting, mostly for bush meat. Uncompetitive yields from wildlife likened with those accrued from agriculture or livestock create inducements for landowners to transform any free land with potential for agricultural activity to cultivation. As wildlife habitat disappears, there continues to exist an increasing risk of conflict between large dangerous animals and people and large. It is very rare for such to be resolved in favor of wildlife unless the people hold exceptionally strong motivations to do it.It is so challenging to come up with incentives with such power that, many conservationists consider it would be better to discard the idea of cohabitation but instead accept that the only answer is to separate wildlife and people altogether, using fences (Flocken, 2015)..

Fences also pose a hot issue to the hunting menace. They denote not the salvation of but of the wilderness but the end of it. In South Africa, fenced and private ranches have performed well in restoring some game populations and changing farmland into a little more closely to its wild state..Fencing of game parks always elicits intense opposition, especially in East Africa. While there is a debate about the morality of trophy hunting, it is also important to know whether trophy hunting can be defensible on scientific and conservation basis, who eventually profits from it, and the type of protection it supports.Considering the long past of hunting in Africa, and how it is perceived the western imagination, one can easily forget that the current commercial, recreational hunting model of in southern Africa has only been existent for approximately 30 years. It carries on changing to fit altering conditions (Adams, 2015).

References

Adams, J. (2015, January 6). Killing in the Name of Conservation — Can Trophy Hunting Help Save Africa’s Wild? Retrieved June 2, 2015, from http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/biodiversity/killing-in-the-name-of-conservation

Flocken, J. (2015, May 20). Retrieved June 2, 2015, from http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/opinions/trophy-hunting-not-conservation-flocken/