Although hunting has been
reduced to marginality in the priorities of society, it has nevertheless
achieved controversial status. The animal rights movement mix the killing
of animals, perceived privileges enjoyed by hunters, the frequently
misinterpreted word "preservation" and the often cited species’
extinction (see box 2) with traces of social envy to successfully
used stir emotions! Furthermore a political dimension entered, since the
anti-hunting campaigns are attacks on the constitutional rights of private
ownership, personal freedom and on our pluralistic structures.
|
Box 2
Human stone-age hunters were responsible for the extinction of 33 major
families of mammals and birds around the last ice age. During the past 400
years the growing human population and the competition for space and
resources has been the major cause of extinctions. All authors ascribed the
"sixth mass extinction" to human activities and population
growth, although their estimates regarding the absolute number of species
going extinct vary widely. Wilson’s, Ehrlich’s and Myers’ estimates
of between 27,000 and 100,000 species going extinct per year are painting
the picture of a catastrophe, whereas Lomborg cites various sources with a
rate of around 2,300 species being the more plausible one.
The concern for the loss of species is certainly also anthropocentric,
since one naturally thinks of "larger and charismatic species"
like the elephant, rhino, etc. and tends to "forget the millions of
black beetles, flies, fungi, etc."
|
Man is part of nature. Within nature man
plays an important role as the only species capable of ethically motivated
responsibility. Hunters have accepted that responsibility and subjected
themselves to a framework of laws and informal guidelines. Reflective and
experienced hunters will go beyond by applying self-imposed limitations.
That does not rule out unethical and illegal behaviour of certain
individuals, but it seems necessary to point out that people who knowingly
act against written and unwritten laws occur in every group of society.
The culture of trophy hunting requires the
hunter to be conscious of animal welfare and the well-being of the
biosphere. Animal welfare does not only include effective and humane
killing, but also the commitment to the maintenance of healthy animal
populations within vibrant eco-systems. The later is impossible without
adaptive management of animal populations within their finite habitats.
Sustainability regarding the off-take and sustainability regarding the
genetic vibrancy are of basic importance. Preservation – bringing
endangered species back from the brink, and conservation – understood as
adaptive management of biodiversity, are two fields, which are inseparably
connected with hunting. The commitment of hunters to preservation and
conservation of soil, plants and animals actually determines the role of
hunting. Another aspect is the economic contribution of safari hunting to
the development of African communities, national economies and the
financing of conservation. Everything else, like tasty venison, hunting
traditions and customs down the line to the open pleasure in hunting, etc.
is secondary in importance for the non-hunting public, albeit of varying
significance for the individual hunter.
The future of hunting in society is
determined by obtaining the trust of the non-hunting citizens. They must be
able to recognize that the hunters – as co-guardians of the world’s
natural heritage - act within the common objectives of biodiversity
conservation. Transparency is a key word. The core competence of the
hunter-conservationist, namely the skilful and ethical pursuit of game and
his conservation knowledge should be clearly visible. Hunting means and
must mean far more than killing of animals. The hunter needs to have the
self understanding of an all-encompassing ecological approach, whether in
black rhino preservation, ivory trade, protection of Indian tigers and the
wild sheep of Asia or combating the threats of desertification and soil
erosion, etc.
Scientists from the many branches
exploring nature’s web of life have a professional interest, deep
knowledge and a wide exposure in biodiversity conservation. The grand
majority of society may also show an interest, but this rarely expands
beyond the horizon of coffee-table books, nature television series, and
occasional letters to media editors complaining about
"insensitive" hunters. It actually has become fashionable to be
"green", "vegan" or otherwise profess sensitivity for
the environment. Many of these self-styled environmentalists, especially
those residing in the urban centres, are simply nature-lovers, since an
occasional walk through the bush, a membership in a conservation or animal
rights organisation, a visit to a luxury game lodge, or the viewing of TV
documentaries does neither constitute what makes a true environmentalist,
nor does it give the essential knowledge to form an opinion! Instead,
emotions based on half-truths and sensationalist reports are allowed to
take over.
Most Africans are anyhow too occupied to
scramble for daily survival. For those living in poverty, biodiversity
conservation is far from the minds – unless biodiversity conservation
produces tangible benefits, or infringes on their lifestyles, respectively
damages their assets.
The hunters certainly have what one could
call "selfish objectives" – the perpetuation of game to hunt!
This statement is indeed true. "Selfishness" however is a genetic
condition of all life on earth! The hunters’ selfish objectives led to
their core competence in conservation matters, although hunters are usually
not professionally involved in wildlife conservation. They do it, because
they love to hunt! Their knowledge and actions serve the human community
and the entire biosphere. It follows that a hunter - in order to be able to
pursue his quarry - has to ensure healthy eco-systems; only within vibrant
habitats will there be game to hunt since "habitat can exist without
animals, but animals cannot exist without habitat!" |