![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Along the way during our trip, there were a number of opportunities to discuss sensitive and difficult issues touching on the conservation and maintenance of these fragile eco-systems. Our first conversation was with the head of the anti-poaching forces for the Karongwe Game Reserve in South Africa. He was a life-long anti-poaching officer, and he talked at length about the challenges he and his team face in protecting the endangered species on the reserve. The current market price for rhino horn has gotten so high that the poaching efforts are now being funded by drug cartels and other criminal syndicates, which means that the poachers are now much better financed and equipped than the officers that are trying to stop them. These officers are poorly paid and understaffed, working long hours in dangerous conditions. Our speaker indicated that he has been shot multiple times, and that he has lost a number of fellow officers over his career. It was clear that he believed that the "shoot-to-kill" anti-poaching laws in place in the 70s and 80s were important deterrents to poaching that helped end the massive poaching of elephants in that era. However, he doesn't believe that the current political climate in South Africa would allow those laws to be reinstated to protect the current targets of the poachers: rhinos and pangolin. In any event, in his mind, the true source of the problem are the persistent myths that rhino horn and pangolin scales have medicinal properties, which drives the demand for these products. Every time the demand seems to abate, someone (a doctor, politician, or celebrity) publicly makes a statement about the supposed benefits, and the demand spikes again. Some game reserves have started shaving the horns on their rhinos in an attempt to protect them, but our speaker's view was that this is of limited value, and might make things worse, because you can't fully remove the horn, and the smaller amount of horn available on each animal will drive the poachers to kill more to meet the demand. It was a very enlightening conversation, even while it was also incredibly depressing.
In Zimbabwe, we had a talk about the pros and cons of big game trophy hunting, which is legal in the private game reserves. These hunting activities bring in large amounts of money (the fees for the hunting permits alone were staggering), and they provide tools for population management. And while the foreign hunters are (mostly) in it for the trophy, efforts are now being made to ensure that the meat from these hunts finds its way into the local markets. However, it is also subject to abuse, where unethical guides help hunters lure game out of protected areas (like the national parks) and onto reserves where they can kill them. In addition, the economic benefits of these activities are not being widely felt in the local economy, in part because of wide spread corruption. And because the permits for these hunts are limited by the populations available for hunting, there are never enough permits to fully satisfy the demand, so some level of poaching continues to be a problem.
Finally, in Botswana we had a discussion about the controversial proposals to reinstate the "shoot-to-kill" policy for poaching. While it is clear that this might create a strong deterrent for poachers, the money is so high for some animals that some people might be willing to take a chance. The problem is that the anti-poaching officers come from the same villages and communities as the poachers, and if they kill a family member or friend, it can have significant social ramifications in the communities. And ultimately, it doesn't strike at the true heart of the poaching issue, which is the demand from overseas purchasers who have access to to much money and political power. Unless those ultimately buying the products of these poaching activities are held accountable, "shot-to-kill" policies are merely a band-aid, rather than a solution.
In Zimbabwe, we had a talk about the pros and cons of big game trophy hunting, which is legal in the private game reserves. These hunting activities bring in large amounts of money (the fees for the hunting permits alone were staggering), and they provide tools for population management. And while the foreign hunters are (mostly) in it for the trophy, efforts are now being made to ensure that the meat from these hunts finds its way into the local markets. However, it is also subject to abuse, where unethical guides help hunters lure game out of protected areas (like the national parks) and onto reserves where they can kill them. In addition, the economic benefits of these activities are not being widely felt in the local economy, in part because of wide spread corruption. And because the permits for these hunts are limited by the populations available for hunting, there are never enough permits to fully satisfy the demand, so some level of poaching continues to be a problem.
Finally, in Botswana we had a discussion about the controversial proposals to reinstate the "shoot-to-kill" policy for poaching. While it is clear that this might create a strong deterrent for poachers, the money is so high for some animals that some people might be willing to take a chance. The problem is that the anti-poaching officers come from the same villages and communities as the poachers, and if they kill a family member or friend, it can have significant social ramifications in the communities. And ultimately, it doesn't strike at the true heart of the poaching issue, which is the demand from overseas purchasers who have access to to much money and political power. Unless those ultimately buying the products of these poaching activities are held accountable, "shot-to-kill" policies are merely a band-aid, rather than a solution.
