Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Regulation of Market for Lion Hunting

In the last blog post, I posited that the conservation of big cats such as lions will most likely fail unless the movements fighting against extinction adopt some market and prices mechanisms as instruments of conservation. Indeed I made a bold bet with myself that given the choice between moral exhortation and a modest market based alternative, I would choose the latter. Dr. Luke Hunter, who works at Panthera, an organization committed to the worldwide conservation of big cats, addresses the market and price question in the piece in the monthly magazine of the organization. His main attack is against the Endangered Species Act which will forbid Us hunters from collecting trophies of lions. 

It is certainly not the first but is obviously a brave effort at sticking his neck out by stating that hunting of lions may is "unpalatable but necessary" for ensuring their survival. His view is quite pragmatic and seeks to confront the simplistic view that the only option is for the human person to stop being evil lions live. In detail, he states that since hunters are prepared to pay as much as US$ 125,000 to take lion parts as a trophy and this demand could be exploited minimally to raise funds for conservation of the species in general. 

The intelligence of this view is demonstrated in his admission that the ideas that inform determination of numbers to be harvested through hunting is based on shoddy science and may be all guess work. his response is that the use of a market based scheme should apply conservative quotas together with extraction based on the age of the animal would be a giant leap forward. Going further he argues that this scheme, well regulated would confirm that hunting will not necessarily harm numbers and growth of the species. He concludes: "Whatever one's personal feeling, hunting should be regarded as yet another tool in the arsenal of options we must consider to conserve the lion". 

Individual lions facing high powered rifles may not agree but surely that's one step forward in incorporate a form of prices and markets in the options for species conservation.  


No comments: