HUNTING IMPACT

Environmental Impacts

To fulfill the environmental requirements of sustainability, hunting tourism must be of value to conservation through the preservation of habitats and the protection of wildlife. Although protected areas afford this, they are not large enough to contain or maintain wide-ranging, viable animal populations.20 Alternatively, game reserves encompass a far greater area (highlighted in the earlier table), which could provide a greater network of protected areas for game species, facilitating an increase in population size and genetic variation between populations.

The economic success of hunting tourism hinges on the quality of the game species harvested, which in turn relies on the quality of the habitat to provide their environmental needs. Therefore, it is in the best interests of hunting operators to maintain pristine habitats for game species. Agricultural expansion is a major cause for concern among conservationists, as it leads to habitat fragmentation and ecological degradation.21 Game reserves play a pivotal role in protecting wildlife habitats, as they attach economic significance to land areas that would normally be utilized for agriculture.22 There is much evidence to suggest that hunting is less destructive than other nonconsumptive forms of ecotourism, such as photographic tourism.23 Hunters have less impact on the environment than photographic tourists as they require fewer local amenities and infrastructure, therefore reducing habitat degradation.24 The income generated from the hunting industry far exceeds that generated from other forms of ecotourism and is derived from fewer tourists, reducing their ecological impact while providing increased revenue for conservation initiatives.25 In fenced reserves the controlled hunting of overpopulated herds is an important aspect of habitat management, as this keeps animal populations below carrying capacity, preventing ecological degradation.15 However, fenced reserves have received much criticism as they block migratory routes.

Deforested forest

Although hunting opposition members argue that hunting by tourists will result in the widespread extinction of greater numbers of animal species, this is not necessarily the case.15 Bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus dorcas), black wildebeest (Connochaetes gnou) and cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra) have all been successfully reintroduced in South Africa as a result of financial assistance provided by hunting tourism.27 Similar success has been achieved with the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum), and from 1968 to 1994 populations increased from 1,800 to over 6,370 on privately owned game ranches.

However, concerns have been raised about the evolutionary consequences of hunting, as the most sought-after trophy animals are usually those with the best physical characteristics.29 By removing animals with superior genes from a population the genetic integrity of that population is compromised, casting doubt over the long-term sustainability of hunting tourism.

Misconduct by game ranch owners threatens the hunting tourism industry's viability as an effective tool of conservation. Some game ranch owners cross-breed closely related species to create unique trophy animals that would prove more desirable to hunters; examples of such hybrids include the red wildebeest and the white springbok.30 Such genetic manipulation that alters coloration can compromise an animal's ability to evade predation. To diversify the range of species available to hunters, outfitters have introduced exotic species to game ranches, which can facilitate habitat degradation and loss of biodiversity.30 Other forms of misconduct include hunting practices from which the trophy animal has little or no chance of escape, such as canned or put-and-take hunting.

The hunting industry is often considered self-regulating, as modest offtake is required to ensure trophy quality remains high over subsequent years.11 Nevertheless, this kind of exploitation carries the risk of reducing population size to a point where hunting is no longer profitable and in extreme cases leaves the species vulnerable to extinction.9 To avoid overexploitation, quotas are established to ensure hunting remains sustainable. However, due to a lack of resources, population estimates that determine quotas are often infrequent and the result of educated guesswork, relying on anecdotal evidence from professional hunters and wildlife officers.31

Quotas have also been criticized for their failure to acknowledge how animal breeding systems may affect the ability of a species to respond to hunting pressure. Caro et al. analyzed the affect of paternal care and infanticide on the sustainability of current hunting quotas and found both decrease the sustainable offtake.17 The detrimental effect of hunting on species that practice infanticide has been well documented in lions (Panthera leo), which are particularly susceptible to male offtake as the removal of pride-holding males increases juvenile mortality.

Due to the legal repercussions of the killing of game as a preventative measure for crop damage and livestock predation, it is difficult to ascertain how many animals are killed in these circumstances. In turn, this makes it equally as difficult to consider this when establishing quotas. In a review of the Selous game reserve, Caro et al. found that although most species were being hunted at sustainable levels, quotas for eland (Taurotragus oryx), hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), lion, reedbuck (Redunca arundinum), sable antelope (Hippotragus niger), warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), and waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) were set at unsustainable levels.17 However, the author admitted that although retaliatory killings and illegal offtake are prevalent, these weren't taken into account due to the aforementioned difficulties in estimating the number of animals killed. This suggests that the hunting pressures on game species perceived as problem animals may be greater than originally considered; therefore, quotas for such species should be reviewed to prevent conservation initiatives being impeded.

Corruption also plays a role in destabilizing hunting quotas, as corrupt officials are thought to provide wealthy hunters special permits which authorize quota exempt offtake.38 Furthermore, in Tanzania, quotas established by the Wildlife Department have been increased by government officials without adequate scientific justification

Social Impacts of Hunting Tourism

It is a common thought that Western societies have enforced their conservation practices on African nations without regard for how they perceive wildlife.45 Population growth requires an increasing amount of land to be allocated to agricultural and industrial expansion; therefore, it is of little surprise that local African communities oppose the conservation of wildlife and habitats.15 This conflict dictates that wildlife must provide an economic incentive to local communities if conservation efforts are to be successful. Although outfitters provide local communities with improved infrastructure, artificial water sources, and much-needed health care to remote regions, relatively few economic incentives are derived from hunting tourism, leading to negative attitudes toward the industry.

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) plays a pivotal role in promoting sustainability by utilizing funds generated from hunting tourism to align conservation interests with rural development.40 The CBNRM concept involves devolving wildlife resources to local communities and permitting their consumptive use as a form of income generation to improve rural livelihoods. Through participation, it is thought that local communities will begin to value wildlife and contribute toward conservation in a way that African governments, with limited finances and resources, cannot.

Most CBNRM schemes follow the blueprint established by the perceived success of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) program, originally established in Zimbabwe during the late 1980s. Between 1989 and 2006 the project generated US$30 million, of which approximately 52 percent was distributed to local communities to promote rural development projects.47 No location has benefited more substantially than the Masoka ward, which has used its revenue to improve the livelihoods of its rural residents by building a four-block primary school, a two-ward clinic, a grinding mill, and two hand-pumped boreholes, to name but a few.48 In addition, environmental benefits have been witnessed since CAMPFIRE's inception; elephant numbers have increased, buffalo numbers are either stable or witnessing a slight decrease, and habitat loss has diminished, and in certain regions, even reversed.

Posted in: