In his book at the hand of man, Raymond Bonner argues that Africa should promote
hunting, charging large fees for permit to kill animals (for example USD 7,500 for a
permit to shoot an elephant)
a)What are some arguments in favour of this proposal?
b.What are some arguments against?
a) Arguments in favour of this proposal include:
-The fees collected from hunting permits could be used to fund conservation efforts, such as anti-poaching patrols, habitat restoration, and research into animal populations.
-The fees could also be used to fund local communities, providing them with an incentive to protect wildlife and their habitats.
-The fees could also be used to fund education and awareness campaigns about the importance of wildlife conservation.
b) Arguments against this proposal include:
-The fees may not be enough to cover the costs of conservation efforts, and may not be enough to incentivize local communities to protect wildlife.
-The fees may encourage poaching, as hunters may be willing to pay more than the permit fee to obtain an animal.
-The fees may not be enough to deter wealthy hunters from engaging in unethical hunting practices.
-The fees may not be enough to discourage the illegal trade in wildlife products.
ask your question in the website helperqna
a) Some arguments in favor of promoting hunting and charging large fees for permits to kill animals in Africa like elephants include:
1. Conservation funding: The revenue generated from hunting permits can be used to fund conservation efforts, including anti-poaching measures, habitat preservation, and wildlife management programs. This can help protect endangered species and maintain ecosystem balance.
2. Economic development: Hunting tourism can be a significant source of income for local communities, providing employment opportunities and stimulating the local economy. This can contribute to poverty alleviation and sustainable development in the region.
3. Incentive for conservation: By attaching a high monetary value to hunting permits, it creates an economic incentive for local communities and governments to protect wildlife and their habitats. It promotes responsible hunting practices and encourages the preservation of wildlife populations for future hunting opportunities.
4. Reducing human-wildlife conflicts: Controlled hunting can help manage and reduce conflicts between humans and animals. By selectively hunting specific problem animals, such as elephants prone to crop destruction or territorial conflicts, it can help mitigate the negative impacts on local communities.
b) Some arguments against promoting hunting and charging large fees for permits to kill animals in Africa like elephants include:
1. Ethical concerns: Many people argue that killing animals for sport or trophy hunting is morally wrong and goes against the principles of animal welfare and conservation. They believe that wildlife should be protected and appreciated for their intrinsic value rather than commodified.
2. Unpredictable consequences: The impact and long-term effects of hunting on wildlife populations and ecosystems are difficult to predict accurately. There is a risk of overhunting or disrupting delicate ecological balances, potentially leading to negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem health.
3. Poaching and illegal hunting: High-value hunting targets, such as elephants, can attract illegal poaching activities. The demand for animal parts, such as ivory, can fuel the illegal wildlife trade and increase the risk of species endangerment. This undermines conservation efforts and perpetuates criminal activity.
4. Alternatives to conservation funding: Some argue that there are alternative ways to fund conservation efforts, such as ecotourism, sustainable agriculture, or philanthropic donations. These options may be more aligned with environmental ethics and can avoid the negative aspects associated with hunting for sport.
It is important to note that these arguments reflect different perspectives and opinions on the matter. The debate surrounding hunting and wildlife conservation is complex and multifaceted.
To understand the arguments in favor and against Raymond Bonner's proposal to promote hunting and charge large fees for permits in Africa, we can explore the topic from different perspectives.
a) Arguments in favor of this proposal:
1. Conservation funding: Proponents argue that by charging high fees for hunting permits, it would generate substantial revenue for conservation efforts. These funds can be used to protect wildlife habitats, combat poaching, and support local communities that rely on wildlife for their livelihoods.
2. Ecological balance: Hunting, when regulated properly, can be used as a management tool to maintain a healthy balance within ecosystems. Advocates argue that controlled hunting can help prevent overpopulation of certain animal species, leading to habitat degradation and potential conflicts with human populations.
3. Economic benefits: The revenue generated from hunting permits can contribute to the local economy by creating jobs in the tourism and hunting industry. This can lead to increased investment in infrastructure, education, and healthcare in rural areas.
b) Arguments against this proposal:
1. Ethical concerns: Many people oppose hunting on ethical grounds, arguing that killing animals for sport or trophies is morally wrong. They believe that promoting hunting for financial gain undermines the intrinsic value of wildlife and perpetuates a culture of violence towards animals.
2. Conservation consequences: Critics assert that the idea of hunting as a conservation tool is flawed. They argue that legalizing hunting does not guarantee effective wildlife management and that it can actually disrupt ecosystems, as hunting can target dominant or genetically superior animals, leading to imbalances within populations.
3. The impact on local communities: Some argue that promoting hunting for wealthy tourists can disrupt local communities' traditional reliance on wildlife, such as through sustainable tourism or consumptive use. This can create dependency, conflicts over hunting rights, and economic inequality.
It's important to note that these arguments represent a range of perspectives, and the actual effectiveness and sustainability of hunting as a conservation strategy may vary depending on the context and implementation.