As expected, it states that demand for the fur, claws and head of the lion are creating a reduction in the population of male lions. Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian writes about the danger that the killing of one lion exposes its pride to due to the instinctive eradication of younger members of a colonized pride. The story makes the argument that US based collectors of animal trophies are driving down these numbers by creating demand which is satisfied by illegal poaching in addition to farmers who kill lions in order to expand their farming acreage.
In all, institutions that call for conservation make a strong case regarding the dynamics that affect the number of endangered species such a lions. Nobody would be oppose the need for conservation where the number of lions in the wild have crashed to 40,000 or less, from 200,000 in a century. However, as I have stated here about the conservation of tigers, it is clear that the curve will go further towards extinction if the conservation approach remains wedded to moral exhortation and reliance on governments that cannot enforce the obligations being placed upon them.
If saving the King of the Jungle is agreed upon, then lessons must be drawn from a fair critique of the model of conservation being pursued. It is anathema to many conservationists, but the incorporation of a market mechanism is inevitable. With 40,000 lions out there, it would help to provide property rights in a creative way to ranch owners or other people to secure a portion of the animals and breed them in the wild. This approach could allow for comparison with the existing conservation model over a ten year time horizon to see what the results are. I would place my bet on the property rights model.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment