Selling Hunting Rights Saves Animals
April 04, 2011
A New York magazine poll recently anointed ``animal rights'' the ``No. 1 hip cause in America,'' a sure sign that the magazine`scosmopolitan readers don't understand the threat that cause poses to human lives. Research into medicines for such life-threatening diseases as AIDS, for instance, would be set back decades without the animal testing of new treatments and, eventually, a vaccine. Consider, too, the millions of African villagers who without medical clinics and electricity can hardly begin to yearn for educations and jobs outside agriculture. Such things require hard currency, which is scarce in most African economies and virtually nonexistent in most African villages. Twenty-nine of the world's 36 poorest countries are African. At least 150 million Africans earn less than $1 a day, and some experts put that figure at 325 million. The answer lies in the effective conservation of wildlife, for wildlife is the most valuable resource many rural Africans have. And this is one area where the threats of animal rights activists become truly dangerous. ``Animal rights groups in the U.S. oppose the killing of wildlife in Zimbabwe,'' explains Harriet Quintanilla, chief executive of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources, or Campfire. ``In Zimbabwe, several (medical) clinics have been built in rural villages with revenues from wildlife. These people are poor... If animal rights groups have their way, they will stay poor.'' Wildlife has generated millions of dollars for Campfire communities. Ninety percent of that money has come from sport hunting, according to the World Wildlife Fund in Zimbabwe; 60% from elephants alone. Yet animal rights activists continue to put animals before the needs of people: ``If we could shut down sport hunting in a moment, we would,'' says Wendell Southwick, vice president of the Humane Society of the United States. The village of Masoka in northern Zimbabwe provides a prime example of how conservation can boost both Africans' standard of living and animal populations--and of what animal rights activists seek to destroy. In 1993, each of Masoka's approximately 120 households earned $450 from wildlife by selling their legal hunting rights to a safari operator, whose clients then paid him for the privilege of hunting elephants near the village. It may not sound like much, but this multiplied the Masoka villagers' income five- to tenfold, depending on the household. Most of the money Masoka's families earned went to build a medical clinic, buy school supplies and maintain an electric fence around the village. The fence, which stretches some 12 miles, protects the villagers and their crops from wild animals. ``This fence also means that the village children can go to school instead of spending their days in the fields protecting the crops from elephants and buffalo,'' writes Stephine Stewart of the World Conservation Union. ``Villagers can sleep at night without worrying about what might happen to their children. Life is better.'' An independent study commissioned by the Kenya Wildlife Service found 3,000 reported incidents of animal-human clashes in 2010 alone--seven daily involving elephants. At least 358 Kenyans have died as a result of such conflicts since 1990. ``In some districts elephants kill more people protecting their crops than poachers kill elephants,'' the KWS says. ``If we continue to do nothing about the landowner antagonism, within the next 20 years, most of our wildlife will have disappeared,'' says Dr. Wardell. ``If landowners don't make money from wildlife, they will wipe it out.'' The solution, according to the independent report, lies in eliminating ``the strict protectionist measure at the root of the problem.'' Kenya did what animal rightists propose, banning all hunting in 1977. Nevertheless, ``between a third and a half of Kenya's wildlife has disappeared in the last 20 years,'' according to the KWS. Between 1970 and 1989 Kenya's elephant population plunged to 16,000 from 167,000. Zimbabwe granted proprietorship over wildlife to landowners in 1982 and allows hunting; since then, its elephant population increased to more than 50,000 from below 40,000. Today, Zimbabwe has 68,000 elephants, Kenya 26,000. Kenya may soon institute a proprietorship policy similar to Zimbabwe's; indeed, ``the few districts in Kenya with stable or increasing wildlife numbers have already put this policy into effect,'' according to the KWS. Kenya is ``moving in the right direction,'' says Maxwell Fee, who administers the U.S. Agency for International Development's $1 million annual conservation grant to Kenya. And so naturally animal rights activists are opposed. Indeed, the Humane Society of the U.S. is actively working to nix AID's financial support of Campfire in Zimbabwe. The choice for Africans and their wildlife is clear: conservation through commerce or continued poverty--and declining wildlife populations--through misguided efforts at protecting animals. ``If rural villagers are not allowed to benefit from wildlife, they will do away with wildlife,'' says Campfire's Mr. Quintanilla. ``The animal rights people do not understand this.'' Perhaps. Or maybe they just don't care. Mr. Carreras is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.
