An article about trophy hunting of markhors in Pakistan as a means to provide conservation funding. Is it justified? Let's see what ZooChatters have to say... American trophy hunter pays $110G to hunt rare mountain goat in Pakistan
Hunting is a very legitimate way to promote conservation, provided it is done right and funds are used to preserve the species. They must also be cautious that the local people benefit from the arrangement. But it appears to be working: "The experiment paid off and the markhor population has reportedly increased again, even prompting the reclassification of the species from “endangered” to “near-threatened.”
As long as the funds are actually handled correctly and reasonable limits are but into how many animals may be killed, hunting is actually a great way to promote conservation. Unfortunately, those don't always happen.
On the one hand I totally agree that it could be a great way to protect the species and it's based on little paradox. But on the other - I think that more important are variety ways to educate and bringing closer people to alive animal. I was wondering this problem in the case of tiger farms. I prefer to build a construct of a tiger in people opinions, heads and hearts - to allow them to get to know and respect life. I still learn how to do that. And I know that this could be a harder and longer way - however, I believe that will be also stronger and finally last longer. But to sum up - I think this could work. I don't agree with idea "I kill an animal for trophy and my money goes for protecting wildlife" at all, but hope that it really helps in conservation if exists.
I think one big difference between Pakistan and other countries that have managed to conserve wildlife and landscapes without hunting (India, Kenya, Botswana, Uganda) is that there is little to no potential for large-scale international photo-tourism in the markhor's range. The terrain is not conducive to anything but hardcore hikers and mountain adventurers, and there aren't too many charismatic ABC species. Also, the reputation as an unsafe conflict zone isn't entirely unjustified. No one can deny that hunting has played a huge role in conservation, and is still useful in many cases. I think the hunting lobby overstates the importance of hunting over photo-tourism in much of Africa, where there have been studies showing that photo-tourism can bring more community development and thus conservation in the long run. Pakistan, for the foreseeable future, might be their actual strongest case. Still, I think it's a strangely good thing that a lot (or, well, a tiny but vocal and influential segment) of Pakistanis are outraged at the hunting of markhor. It shows a measure of local/domestic concern for the species which is the first and most important step to any kind of long-term conservation.
My indignant Facebook post linking to this very same article: Where is the context in the headline? If you read the story you'll find that the Markhor is A) Legal to Hunt in Pakistan B) No longer an endangered species because it's numbers have risen (almost certainly because of the protections afforded to it as a managed game species) C) Hunters pay $110,000 in permitting fees (which probably go to fund the Conservation infrastructure and provide an incentive to keep protections for the species as it now has value....) Reasonable conclusions that can be inferred and should not be hidden beneath an "outrage" headline. That’s how I felt about it. I really dislike outrage headlines, reading the article I almost believe that the writer tried to write a balanced and informative story and some editor in the click-bait department concocted the headline and another editor who wouldn’t know a Markhor from an Argali, but certainly intuitively feels a certain way about animals butchered the story, but possessed just enough integrity to leave the facts in place...so that a knowledgeable reader might discern the reality of the matter. Unfortunately the average voter won’t and the average politician could care less about anything other than attaining re-election putting us squarely at the mercy of the loudest and dumbest members of the mob. I guess that, in truth, that circumstance is marginally better than the politician who cares for more than just be re-elected! To sum up: regulated hunting preserves species and habitat, the Markhor is currently subject to sustainable management (that may change of course), in Conservation think Species not Individual. And as always please note that I am not personally a Hunter.
