This video is a must watch from CBS on the economics of saving endangered species through hunting. Though a couple of the questions are a bit over the top (how do you kill something you love?), it’s overwhelmingly fair. And yes, the animal rights activist argues that she’d rather see a species struggle to survive than be raised in the United States and potentially hunted once the numbers are high enough.
The rule the mention that will basically slash the numbers of near-extinct animals to almost nil can be found here and has a bit of history to it. Consider this from the background information from the Fish & Wildlife Service:
With the exception of reintroduced animals, no sightings of the scimitar-horned oryx have been reported since the late 1980s. …
Based on a 2010 census of its members, the Exotic Wildlife Association (EWA) estimates there are 11,032 scimitar-horned oryx, 5,112 addax, and 894 dama gazelle on EWA member ranches.
Just on member ranches, there are more than 11,000 animals of a species that hasn’t been see on its original home turf in North Africa in 30 years. Yet, it’s not acceptable that these animals are raised and thrive in a new land according to an activist who purportedly wants the species to live.
I asked someone who knows animal issues and the federal government if this falls squarely on the Obama Administration. I was told yes and no. As it was explained to me, while the Fish & Wildlife Service was forced into the position by the courts, the Administration could have fixed the flaws in the original rule that allowed the hunts to take place. They didn’t, so now the hunts are ending.
As I’ve grown so fond of saying in recent years, elections have consequences. For these 11,000 scimitar-horned oryx, it’s pretty much a death sentence with possible extinction of the species. For hunters, it’s access to unique hunting opportunities where the profits will go back into recovering the species for future generations. For gun owners in general, well, it’s just another door closing on one the traditions for some in our community.
I’m shocked. Bottom line, 60 Minutes actually sided with the hunters over the animal-rights nutjobs.
I commented to someone that between this and the coverage over Fast & Furious, I think someone put something in the water at CBS News. It’s been too fair lately. Not that I’m complaining!
The nut job that sued to get the hunts all but ended seems typical in the way she wants them to exist on reserves in Africa but doesn’t bother to even have a plan to A, provide the reserve space for All of the animals seeing that the ranchers won’t want to feed them without some sort recompense. B, provide the funding to remove all the animals to said reserve & C, provide funding to run the reserve and guard against poachers & predators lest the animals go extinct on the African continent AGAIN. Other than that her plan seems perfect.
Must be making up for that awful Dan Rather report against hunting.
Even in Africa, the only countries with credible conservation programs are those that offer hunting. Those that don’t offer hunting typically have fewer animals because there’s no money to fight poaching, no incentive to stop farmers from expanding, or money to compensate them for crop damage (you think deer in your corn are bad–try dealing with hippos or elephants.) Getting upset over a single animal being shot loses sight of the broader goal of protecting the species. Same deal with people who flip out over logging without realizing that a viable commercial forest is a heck of a lot better than turning it into a strip mall, which is what happens when land is no longer able to turn a profit.
Not really on topic, but another way all shooters support conservation is the tax on bullets, including all handgun ammunition, that goes toward national conservation goals. If somebody tells you handguns aren’t for hunting, then ask them why there’s a tax on handgun ammo used to support national refuges.
Pittman-Robertson is an incredibly useful PR tool when it comes to firearms and the shooting sports that have nothing to do with hunting.
Lady seems like the typical anti zealot. She got 175 antelopes on a preserve in Senegal. The Texas ranchers have 11,000. Of course the Obama administration sides with the crazy lady.
I can bet you in 10 years that the number of animals on the preserve in Senegal will be much less than ever existed in Texas. She’s treating Africa like her own little national park, forgetting that people live and work there.
I recall reading somewhere that the best way to ensure a species survives (with the caveat that it has to be breedable in captivity and mature in a sensible timeframe) is for human beings to find it delicious – because then we’ll make sure we make more of them.
Or in this case, intriguing to hunt.
I’ve heard that about manatees (I don’t know if they actually taste good, but I’ve read they do)
If David Drake’s quote from Age of Exploration sources (Hakluyt’s Voyages, I believe) is accurate, it supposedly tastes like good beef
Yeah that sounds right. No idea how feasible it is to farm them, plus they look more ‘cute’ so there is probably less willingness to even discuss it.
Same issue with wild polar bears in Canada. The government wants to expand hunting on what is, right now, a healthy population. The anti-hunting types, who are usually also AGW alarmists, are appalled that a “almost sure to be threatened in the future if their climate beliefs come to pass” species might be hunted more rather than less.
They seemingly fail to realize that if they are correct about AGW it means less sea ice, which means more bears on land competing for less food and interacting negatively with local humans more. Females and cubs will lose out in that scenario and the only question will then be if the population will starve fast enough, in the right sex and age ratios, for them to recover prior to stripping their environment unrecoverably bare of food.
Yet, actual managed hunting can concentrate bear losses in the ranks of superfluous males, preserving dwindling resources for females and cubs and fund research to maintain the overall wild population at a level the changing environment can support.
But “all killing of animals is bad” so science and logic have to give way to their emotion-driven beliefs.