You know those game ranches that produce trophy animals for people to hunt?
You know– the ones that both the animal rights activists and the self-styled defenders of the “true hunt” defame?
Well, they are actually saving endangered species! And the US Fish and Wildlife Service used to agree!
Check out this 60 Minutes piece on the role that these ranches are playing in saving certain endangered species.
I have a very different view of these ranches than I once did. I’m opposed to canned hunting in which people shoot animals in cages, but I have nothing against these well-run game ranches.
Altruism alone won’t save many endangered species. Economic value is a very is very important conservation tool, whether people want to admit it or not.
Those ranches and preserves also provide many good photo ops. Both activities are staged for profit, but that does not mean that the operations can’t also be run with the utmost in scientific breeding, for instance. Or that it could be possible to do these activities in a sustainable landscape.
I’d prefer that there wasn’t a need for game ranches, but lets face it, its the hunters and fishermen who end up paying for the bulk of any of the programs necessary to preserve species and habitats.They’re also the ones who mount the most effective lobbying efforts in support of both. The US president who is best known for his hunting prowess, Teddy Roosevelt, is also the one most famed for his conservation platform. There’s a definite message there.
Before anyone criticizes hunting and hunters, (s)he should keep in mind that in hunting, although individual animals are killed, the species survives. And isn’t species survival the basic tenet of life and living?
If well run, the selection for stock is not much different than the environmental pressures from non human predators (lions, hyenas, wild dogs, etc). But yes, game farms, which are being threatened by proposed legislation, can be a means of preserving rare species and diversity within those species. The same applies, by the way, to wild animal parks and zoos for predators like lions, tigers, etc. Of course, some of the fanatics will need to “get over” the issue of “impure” tigers and lions and recognize that in some instances, “mongrel” lions or tigers may be better than NO lions or tigers at all.
Even if there weren’t a “need” for game ranches, there’s no reason to eliminate them. One doesn’t need to be a hunter to be able to respect the right of others to be hunters. Just because someone is doing something that is unpaltable to another doesn’t make it “wrong”. We need to get over the idea that everyone needs to do things the way “we” would.
I suppose you can always find something positive in any well organized operation. ???? I just can’t get past the images of the canned hunts where a leopard or a panther is let out of its cage and its so scared out of its wits that Instead of running for cover to at least make it some sort of effort on the part of the hunter….the big cat cowers underneath the gunman’s parked vehicle and the hunter basically walks right up to it and puts a bullet in its head like a real mafia style execution. No sport, but sure as hell a nice trophy.
Their are other counter arguments that also deserve consideration. Would having canned species create complacancy regarding preserving the species in the wild as their is a percieved reserve bank of animals to draw on?
Also selection pressures within these hunting parks could bring about changes within the species that suit the owners rather than the species. As an example I was once a keen orchid grower and lets focus on the Queensland state flower the Cooktown Orchid.It has been harvested ruthlessly from many locations in my home state but many growers have bred this species in their own collections for decades. Thing is, these line bred plants look nothing like the wild flowers as breeders breed what they see what as desirable traits into their plants rather than what is natural. I am using this species as it takes years from seed to flowering plant say 3 to 4 much like many animal species and this “captive breeding” program can be measured in decades rather than centuries.
There is the moral issue of canned hunting that also sticks in my throat. Anyone who is familiar with Cubby the bear and that low life country singer Troy Gentry who murdered this animal will know what I mean. http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-11-28-gentry-sorry_x.htm
No matter how big these ranches at the end of the day its still canned hunting…the animal is purpose bred to be killed for sport and entertainment. Species conservation is a byproduct of this activity. The value of an individual of a threatened species functioning within its natural habitat is far greater than one that is basically a zoo animal.
Just my 2 cents :)
Cubby was a tame bear that was socialized to humans. That’s actual canned hunting. Black bears are also not endangered, and you can very easily get a permit in most states where they are located to hunt them for real.
These game parks are vast acreages. The animals live fairly natural lives before they are killed. I don’t think you can call that canned hunting. Most game ranches in Africa are very similar to this, and many are quite a bit smaller than those in Texas.
The problem is that Texas is in a developed country with lots of land and lots of wealth. Most of these animals come from countries that have growing human populations, and many of these people are quite poor and dependent upon shrinking natural resources for survival. We have to be concerned about coming up with ways to solve human issues in those parts of the world before we can talk about wildlife conservation.
But Texas has the ability to keep unique lines of these animals that can be introduced to the wild once the human development issues are solved. And trust me, they aren’t easily solved.
I think this is a tempest in the teapot and is not helpful to having pragmatic approaches to wildlife conservation.
Crikey Scottie did not know it would insert the video as that part is not the primary focus of my comments. Sorry if this sends comments off on a tangent away from your original story. I appreciate that the Cubby story presents a worst case scenario with regards to canned hunting.
Yeah. It inserts the video.
My view on Cubby is that is a bad case, but bad cases make bad law.
I noticed that the ‘anti’ woman in the show basically is saying she’d rather the species go extinct rather than live in captivity with some of them being hunted.
These ARs and their rigid scorched-earth ‘better off dead’ attitude really angers me.
Love her or hate her still got to give her credit for trying to make a difference to the species survival on african soil! Damn sight more than anything I have done :)
I don’t think Africa is going to be able to conserve its species on its own.
They have real human health and welfare issues that are going to take precedence over conserving wildlife.
I’m not trying to turn this into a bizarre recalibration of “white man’s burden,” but what I’m saying is that the West has the capacity to conserve African wildlife while African countries work on trying to help their people. Yes, I blame colonialism for all of this, but I want practical solutions.
I’m afraid that Westerners lecturing poor people about animal rights and conservation isn’t really the best way to do it.
And part of that equation may be getting African people to link their financial wellbeing with the survival of the species on African soil. Personally I would rather see the critters in Africa than Texas. What percentage of the profits from these game ranches finds its way back to Africa I wonder?
The issue isn’t that not all governments can promote eco-tourism.
I’m not sure if any profits go back to Africa, but they maintain species that would otherwise go extinct and are currently really losing genetic diversity in Africa.
North America has healthier native ungulate populations than virtually any other place in the world. We also have a lot more wilderness, and relative wealth to concentrate on these issues.
Ted Turner was working on a project that would bring many African species to parts of America where they would be kept as wild animals, thus providing some kind of genetic reserve for the dwindling populations in Africa.
Richard Branson had a similar idea with lemurs, but his was far too unrealistic.
I’m only in favor of this for North America.
If someone tries this with Australia, they are morons. Australia’s native fauna is too fragile to have lions and antelope.
However, Australia does have what I think is the only herd of wild banteng in the world.
We had no native hard hooved animals period as well. I suppose at the end of the day the whole show was in my eyes basically a big advertising stunt by the ranches to promote themselves as keepers of the flame and if people choose to look deeper thats a good thing and if not and wish to take it at face value well thats their choice too.
I find the argument that hunters are the best conservationist to be greatly flawed. History does not support this stance and when a society exploits a species to the brink they will switch to another species….Commercial fishing is a great example..anyone care for patogonian toothfish?
I particularly liked the part at 7:57 where he almost said use these animals for sport and then backtracked to use them to hunt OOPS :)
Russell; all your arguments have merit–I too am and have been very concerned about extinctions caused by overfishing/overhunting. But, most of the overfishing is a result of big business practices, which are a direct reflection of human demand. Many (not enough, but many) of the little guys are very aware of of the conservation issues and, if for no other reason than self-interest, cooperate in conservation efforts. As for hunting species to extinction, our history is rife w/ examples, as witness the passenger pigeon. Recreational hunters, as exemplified by organizations like Ducks Unlimited, are today doing more than any other groups to preserve both game species and habitat. (The flip side of course is the current push to cull wolves in ID to “preserve the Elk herd”.) Nevertheless, many of these folks are rabid conservationists. On the other hand, government, using US tax dollars, at the urging of ranchers, has been waging a war of attrition on the remaining bison herds, lest their cattle be exposed to brucellosis (did I mention that said bison & cattle are grazing on public lands?)
The bottom line is that wild species of almost every kind are threatened by the pressures brought to bear by 7 billion human beings. Those interested in preserving these species, whatever their motivations, methods or ends, need to work together for the sake of what can be saved over what ought to be saved. Will the result be “pure strains” of tigers, lions, etc., and will they have a desirable level of genetic diversity? Probably not, but perhaps, just perhaps, we can bring some representatives of these species through these perilous times. When, hopefully, mankind attains some sanity in regards to human population control, there will be at least some rootstock left on which to base a renewed round of speciation.
I hear what your saying Massugu . My primary concern is that people dont get blinded by the numbers with regards to threatened species but focus more on maintaining the best possible range of genetic stock rather than just breeding stuff like crazy to satisfy a profit motive. Why settle for second best when there are windows of opportunity to create something better. Our goal should be to establish genetically strong populations and at some level mass unmanaged breeding of some of these threatened species may create a false sense that we have plenty of something and therefore we become complacent.
I enjoyed your reference to passenger pigeons as it fascinates me that such a common species could be annihalated in such a short period of time. I see parallels with flying fox populations in my country that many ignorant people wish to cull.
The extinction of the many species of Moa in Newzealand is another case of hunters not knowing when to stop. The bison you mentioned were smashed to their knees by recreational hunters who again did not know when to stop and the stories I have read about the animals left to rot on the plains are tragic.
There will always be hunters with good conservation ethics but I found “Paul” a bit pathetic when he claimed he hunted because his money would keep the animals alive on that ranch. Truth is he wanted the trophy plain and simple and I would have respected the guy a lot more if he had been honest regarding his motivation.
Hi Russell, I think that we’re in, more-or-less, violent agreement here (LOL). Where we differ is in that you’re opting only for the best windows while I’m opting for all windows (not that I don’t’ prefer quality over quality, but in this instance some is better than none.) Will numbers create a false sense of security–undoubtedly. But the vast majority of people will continue to be interested in their immediate, short-term concerns for comfort, not the plight, genetic diversity or numbers of any given species (other than H. sap. of course). I’d be willing to bet that if this conversation were on a major Facebook page that many of the readers (Americans at least) would just write the lot of us off as “liberal, commie, tree-huggers.” Hell, there’s a large contingent of people who think that depleting earth’s resources will hasten the “Rapture”–this group includes a former US Secretary of the Interior by the way.
Like Scotty, I urge practicality over ideology, & something over nothing. I know it sounds rather as though I’m suffering from a “siege mentality”, but in light of human fecundity & appetites, the biosphere is in fact under siege. Make no mistake, we are in the midst of an accelerated major extinction event. But in this case the causal agent can take some poor stumbling steps to help mitigate it.
As an aside: You said “I see parallels with flying fox populations in my country that many ignorant people wish to cull.” There is a very real danger of that. A precedent exists here in the US (yet again), in the form of the Carolina Parakeet–a non-game species shot out of existence because of its predilection for domestic fruit crops.
Never heard of this parakeet but will look them up! Ibelieve that with creatures such as flying fox and the long gone passenger pigeon they simply need to live in large colonies and when we reduce their nimbers to a certain point bang…extinction spiral!
By the way those Banteng you mentioned are inbred like crazy having come from an original population of something like 20 animals. Bradshaw CJ, Isagi Y, Kaneko S, Brook BW, Bowman DM, Frankham R (July 2007). “Low genetic diversity in the bottlenecked population of endangered non-native banteng in northern Australia”.
Theres even talk of injecting fresh blood into the population to combat this inbreeding. An interesting proposition for a feral species :)
With any endangered species ungulate or otherwise it is unwise to pay insufficient regard to genetic diversity within any recovery program. Rubbish in=rubbish out :)
BTW, those Banteng might be inbred, but they are about the only wild ones left that still have the reproductive behavior and physiology of the wild banteng. The rest have a lot of gaur and cattle genes, which changes their behavior and physiology significantly.
You can have inbred populations that have no problems. I know that sounds weird, but with ungulates and rodents, it’s very common for them to have what’s called an inbreeding tolerance.
If you were to just bring in generic domestic banteng blood, you’d likely introduce traits that would make them less fit to live in the wild– what’s called an outbreeding depression, which can be just as bad as an inbreeding depression.
We just have different values.
Unlike Peggy, I’m not a libertarian. I’m a utilitarian. To me, this results in the maximal happiness for everyone. African governments are giving room to take care of their significant social problems without Western platitudes about conservation beating them over the head. Texas ranchers get a lucrative business opportunity, and endangered animals are saved from extinction.
I have very little use for moral platitudes that prevent maximal happiness.
It’s just a different way of thinking about morals and policy.
I don’t come up with pre-determined values. It’s just not in my nature.
Scotty said: “You can have inbred populations that have no problems. I know that sounds weird, but with ungulates and rodents, it’s very common for them to have what’s called an inbreeding tolerance.”
Since sexual access in so many many herbivorous species is limited to one or a few males over a relatively extended period of time, I expect that there’s been a certain amount of selection for resistance to inbreeding/line-breeding. The same is not true–at least not to the same extent–for most carnivores.
Sabah has a population of approximately 500 very wild Banteng so the introduction of pure new genetic material into Australian herds would not have to involve the use of genetically impure stock.Therefore outbreeding depression can be totally avoided. Saying this one must also consider the difficulty involved in capturing such large and elusive animals in their native habitat!
I don’t really label myself as anything…what I do believe in is that we should listen like theives and search for the truth within the story…not just this story but any story! Debate is healthy and there is no rule that says we all have to agree!
One observation was that there was a lot of talk about numbers but no talk of focussed cooperative efforts to maintain genetic diversity amongst herds. At the end of the day a hunter on one of these ranches cares little about this and neither would the ranchers as their is no financial pressure to maintain registers and exchange animals to maintain strong genetic diversity. This is important as the foundation animals which formed the basis of these large texas populations were limited to begin with.
Throughout the world zoos are obliged to maintain registers of endangered animals to maintain genetic diversity ie making sure the right partners are put together. These ranches appear to have no obligation as they are after quantity not quality for obvious financial reasons. One of the interviewees even mentions herds of 200 animals that began with 6 individuals.
None of the interviewees even touched on this which I found disturbing. No one appears to give a rats backside about the genetic value of the the stock. If these farms were run by conservation minded individuals they would certainly be proudly focusssing on this issue as it would help prove their commitment to ensuring the best possible future for the species as something other than a hunters target.
Genetic diversity doesn’t typically matter as much with ungulates as it does with Carnivorans or primates. All the Przewalski’s horses that are alive today derive from just a few founders.
There are two species that would not exist today if it were not for these hunting ranches– Pere David’s deer and the scimitar horned oryx.
There’s no reason why a game farm would “care” about genetic diversity. But they do care about the animals not being deformed. Moreover, since they ARE commercial operations, one could probably find a way to encourage them to maintain genetic diversity — a free exchange with zoos, allowance for “hunters” to dart an animal & do an exchange with a wild caught animal.
I’m a bit of a Libertarian. I am not in favor of forcing people to do something because it’s what “I” would do or forbidding people to do something because it isn’t something “I” would do. As with Ducks Unlimited, there is a good possibility of convincing game farms to establish breeding programs so all can benefit. The thing would be to have laws allowing it, instead of laws banning ownership of any exotic. And yes, in some other parts of the world, the issue is staying alive, not preserving the wildlife. Some species are far more likely to surive here than in their country of origin. That might change, but it won’t matter if the species in question is extinct when it does.
Peggy said “I am not in favor of forcing people to do something because it’s what “I” would do or forbidding people to do something because it isn’t something “I” would do. ”
Hallelujah sister! Half the problems we’re seeing in the current election fever (not to mention most of the more recent wars) would be non-issues if more folks shared your philosophy.