Hunting Endangered Animals In Texas

I recently saw a segment on Sixty Minutes (Can hunting endangered animals save the species? - CBS News) and it was about some hunting ranches in Texas that let you hunt many exotic species including Scimitar-horned oryx, Dama gazelle and addax but at these places they these species breed very well and ranchers claim it is for conservation. They ranchers say that if they do not make money from the hunts then they can not support the animals. The animal rights people claim that the ranchers are just doing this for profit and the real conservation programs should be in Africa and all this in the U.S. will not help endangered species. They also interviewed the owner of the B Bryan Preserve (B Bryan Preserve Gallery) who said that the hunting ranches are helping the conservation of these species. I went on a Texas hunting ranches website and saw how many species they had:
•Addax Hunts
•Afghan Urial Hunt
•African Porcupine Hunt
•Aoudad Sheep Hunt
•Arabian Oryx Hunt
•Armenian Mouflon Hunt
•Axis Deer Hunt
•Axis Doe Hunts
•Barasingha Hunt
•Black Hawaiian Ram Hunt
•Black Wildebeest Hunt
•Blackbuck Antelope Hunt
•Beisa Oryx Hunt
•Blesbok Hunt
•Blue Sheep Hunt
•Blue Wildebeest Hunt
•Bobwhite Quail Hunt
•Bongo Hunt
•Buffalo Hunts
•Catalina Goat Hunt
•Chinese Water Deer
•Chukar Hunt
•Corsican Ram Hunt
•Dama Gazelle Hunt
•Eland Hunts
•Eld's Deer Hunt
•Elk Hunt
•Fallow Deer Hunt
•Father & Son Hunt
•Feral Hog Hunt
•4 Horned Jacob Sheep
•Fox Hunts
•Gaur Hunts
•Gemsbok Hunt
•Hill Country Whitetail
•Himalayan Tahr Hunt
•Hog Deer Hunt
•Hybrid Ibex Hunt
•Impala Hunt
•Kafue Lechwe Hunt
•Kudu Hunt
•Markhor Hunt
•Merino Ram Hunt
•Mexico Dove Hunt
•Mouflon Hunts
•Mule Deer Hunt
•Muntjac Deer Hunt
•Nilgai Hunt
•Nubian Ibex Hunts
•Nyala Hunt
•Painted Desert Ram Hunt
•Pere David's Deer
•Pheasant Hunt
•Persian Ibex Hunt
•Pronghorn Antelope
•Red Stag Hunt
•Red Lechwe Hunt
•Red Sheep Hunt
•Rhea Hunts
•Roan Antelope Hunt
•Rusa Deer
•Sable Hunts
•Sambar Deer
•Scimitar Oryx Hunts
•Sika Deer Hunt
•Sitatunga Hunt
•South Texas Whitetail
•Springbok Hunt
•Texas Dall Sheep
•Texas Dove Hunts
•Texas Ram Slam Hunt
•Thomson's Gazelle Hunt
•Transcaspian Urial Hunt
•Turkey Hunt Package
•Waterbuck Hunt
•Water Buffalo Hunt
•Watusi Hunts
•White Bearded Wildebeest Hunts
•White Buffalo Hunt
•Whitetail Deer Hunt
•White Winged Dove Hunt
•Wild Boar Hunt
•Wildebeest Hunt
•Yak Hunt
•YO Ibex Hunt (Persian Ibex hybridized with Catalina Goat)
•Zebra Hunts (Grants Zebra)

So what do you think about this?

 

If this practice results in more of these species being in existence [and having a good life while it lasts], and by inference existing as a larger gene pool, then it is probably a good thing, as long as it doesn't result in degradation of the land they are kept on.

 

I don't have a propblem with this, as long as the hunts aren't totally canned.

Havings said that, how available are these animals to regional (North American) breeding programmes, do they regularly bring animals into the programmes from these ranches? And do the ranches themselves (collectively or individually) actually keep viable populations, or are their animals becoming more inbred? I see there are a number of hybrids listed, are these kept seperate from the true populations? Also, there was a conversation somewhere on ZooChat about ranches (might have been South African game reserves) breeding selectively, which may reduce the success of reintroduction programmes. Finally, if these ranches are about conservation, then they should be happy to provide stock for breeding programmes, or even reintroductions, for free, would they really be willing to do that? If not, then it is just a business model which uses conservation as a marketing tool.

Second finally, who would want to hunt a rhea? Seems a weird choice to me.

 

I do wonder what kind of loser would find any sport whatsoever in blowing up a porcupine.

The Scimitar-horned oryx, Dama gazelle and addax populations in Texas are reputed to be larger than those in any part of Africa, where these species have apparently been extirpated. If these Texas populations are verifiably being used to restore wild populations and act as genuine assurance populations, then I have no problem with the hunting programs. I think that many hunters, maybe most, do really care about wildlife conservation. The AZA zoos certainly aren't able to conserve populations at the population scale of thousands of individuals and "wildness" (i.e., animals wandering mostly freely in huge grasslands) as these Texas ranches have.

A transparent and comprehensive report on the real conservation value of these ranches (or not) would be greatly valued. The "60 Minutes" piece was good, but only 15 minutes long and largely anecdotal.

 

What other answers should there be? The only other answer I could think of is stop allowing the hunting but keep the animals on the ranches. If the government banned hunting endangered species then all of the ranchers they interviewed said that they would run out of money and the animals would leave the ranches.

My favorite animal on here is 4 Horned Jacob Sheep.

 

The other options should be:

-The ranches are for profit and should be allowed to keep the animals.
-The ranches are for conservation and should not be allowed to keep the animals.

A better poll would have been:

Should endangered animals be kept on hunting ranches:

-Yes, it helps conservation of these species.
-Yes, but it does nothing for their conservation.
-No, the conservation benefits exist, but do not outweigh the negatives.
-No, it is just a profit-making exercise.

 

To which we could add:

Yes - profit is not a dirty word and can be a great motivator to keep these species alive - irrespective of any conservation value that they may or may not have.

 

This would be of even more benefit in Australia as we have no where near the number of zoos as North America. Our zoos already struggle to keep a viable population of most species. Imagine the improvements to genetic diversity and number of species if the private keeping of large herds was profitable and possible.

 

I have not heard of the species between Fallow deer and Feral hog.

 

Sorry, I just copied this list from a hunting ranches website.

 

I watched this on 60 Minutes yesterday... And I didn´t like it.. Why was the "animal rights lady" the only person representing people that don´t agree with it? I got serious anti-zoo vibe from her and her answers were really silly.
Why didn´t they interview somebody more ... I don´t know... normal??

They made it really "black and white". /You can choose: hunter or crazy woman?/ She didn´t want the animals in Texas at all and the guys basically said, that if they can´t shoot them, then they won´t have them.

There was nobody trying to consider other options.

 

What are some other options?
Ones which are achievable,& maintain not just the spiecies, but the land,habitat & biodiversity found on these 'Private" reserves.
Maybe they should just grow sheep, instead of using their land for conservation?

Down here many of the recent aqusitions by our zoo's, have come from the safari industry.Without it, there would be localised extinctions.

Cheers Khakibob

 

They were talking about the 3 most endangered species which they can´t hunt anymore and basically said, that if they can´t hunt them, they´re gonna slowly phase them out.
But they are just 3 species out of many, don´t tell me they can´t keep these three alive, using the money from the others.
Additional money could come, for example, from tourism (guided tours, wildlife gift shop..) and from selling licences to wildlife photographers.

And I´m not judging here, I´m not there and I feel that I don´t have enough information to advocate something here. But I don´t believe that the issue is so black and white, as the 60 minutes video was implying.

 

Tourism & access to photographers has always been avaliable.This is the lowest value use as they are not prepared to pay in excess of $500 per day for access as hunters do. A busload of tourists has higher impact on the preserve than one hunter taking a surplus or cull animal,yet the hunter returns much more profit,which pays for conservation.

Animal liberationists are more concerned about stopping conservation projects that don't comply with their ideaology than protecting ,restoring or managing biodiversity.

Every animal on these reserves can still be hunted.The owners now apply for a Federal permit.This has added red tape, beurocracy & costs.The "value" & returns are halved & there is less money to continue to increase the abundence of these & other species.
Will the nutter's stop at these species or are they already muddying the water around several others?

It may have been a win for animal liberationists,but a step backwards for conservation.

Cheers Khakibob

 

It is my observation that this is exactly what happens.However.

All the conventions & laws also create red tape for legitimate conservationists not just the criminals,as an example if your Minister of Environment is influenced by greenie extremists (or other politics), good luck getting a CITIES permit or export permit to reintroduce an animal into its indigenous country.God forbid you may want to breed them so they become more abundent.We just cant have farmers,businessmen,hunters,etc achieving conservation outside of the Government approved or publicly accepted way, now can we?

How often should a private breeder have to "freely" replace stock or supply new genitics to exhibits or "breeding programmes" which constantly need topping up?
How about when the private breeders are actually doing the best job of restoration & conservation?

Should it not at least be a two way door with the ability to swap animals with exhibits,especially when this is the best course to conserve a gene pool, instead of the one way policy currently being adopted by many "exhibiting" associations & institutions?
How long before the private breeders say "no more",unless we can swap genetics to achieve the best results for a species.I can tell you it's already started.

Cheers Khakibob

 

Whether it makes sense from a conservation standpoint or not, the whole concept leaves a foul taste in my mouth. I'm not overly fond of people killing for pleasure at the best of times; I have nothing but disdain for people who are even more eager to kill something if it's endangered.

At best it's a necessary compromise: ideally, conservation should be able to happen for its own sake. At worst, it undermines the very concept of conservation.

 

Who is going to pay

Currently it is a self funded model. No government funding or donations needed. Wildlife managed well are a sustainable resource, keeping non domesticated species is more green and environmentally friendly.

 

Conservation is defined by the things we "do" to protect & restore the things we consider "valuable".

Foul taste or not "conservation hunting" is having a measurable outcome in the locations it is allowed to be utilised. Increasing the value of a species leads to measurable outcomes for the said species, & the land it shares.

Hint: Try ageing & marinating to improve the taste in some of the larger game species.

Cheers Khakibob

 

Wow, that's quite tasteless a joke.

I'm not thrilled by hunting for amusement only no matter what species, to hunt endangered animals just for the thrill of it makes me sick, but I can't see why it should be worse then to kill a dog, cat or cow from an "animal welfare perspective" I do, however, doubt that the animals at these ranches are cared for in as good a way as in a good zoo, the ones to be shot have access to quite big areas but those who breed them seems to keep the breeders in small breeder pens, and mainly use insemination from large impressive individuals which may lead to hundreds(? how big is this industry??)of offspring from one nice male. I couldnt find any information about conservation on the websites i browsed(just ten or so, maybe not representative?) and many of the animals up for sale was in the $10k range, so I don't think the companys would give away alot of animals for free - can't see any info about conservation in situ either like saving land etc.

I work at a commercial parrot breeding facility, raise alot of different species and although the birds are very well cared for(and not hunted after weaning) and I do see some kind of conservation value in it short term(zoos kinda suck when it comes to breeding many parrots) just by keeping the numbers of captive individuals up I highly doubt that my boss or any other would like to give away palm cockatoos, hyacinth macaws or other birds they sell for >$20k each - and I don't think that they are eager to donate half of their profit to conservation projects.

I like the thought that hobby breeders could cooperate with zoos, universities and states that do real conservation, but I doubt it will ever happen in a big organised scale and as for now, I only know of a handful of private breeders contributing to conservation.