Hunters Create The Economic Incentive

Dr. Dave Samuel

Recently antihunters have filed to stop the importation of trophies of species that are "threatened". In particular, this suit centers around argali sheep from Tajikistan, Mongolia and Kyrgyzstan. On the surface, it would seem to make sense to stop the hunting of threatened species. If the courts rule in the antis favor, all hunting for species such as the argali will stop. Then what happens? Let's dig a little deeper and see. As we go along I believe you will reach the conclusion that if the courts ban the import of threatened species, it will mean the demise of many of those species. Here is why.

Let's look at Kyrgyzstan as an example. As in most third world countries, there is much poverty, and relative to wildlife, there is little law enforcement. So, why haven't all the argali's been poached for food? Why are there argali sheep still living there? Who living in that country cares about argali sheep? The answer is, the people that make a living from the legal hunting of argali sheep. Next question. Whom living in that country will protect the sheep so that numbers do not dwindle? Same answer...the people that make a living from the legal hunting of argali sheep. So, the economic incentive that keeps argali sheep out there is recreational hunting. It is not the Kyrgyzstan government. It is not the antihunters filing the suit. It is not wildlife photographers going there to photograph argali's. And it is not nonhunters going there to see argali's. It's the hunters.

OK, maybe the government does a little, and maybe there are a few photographers and nonhunters who go there to see and photograph animals, but the overwhelming majority of the money generated by living argali's is from hunters. The more argali's, the more hunting, and the more money coming into the region. This is true for argali's, and it's true for a number of other threatened species in third world countries everywhere. I've heard the argument that in Africa, the photo safaris provide such economic incentive. Maybe for some species, in some locales, but in general, there are much data from Africa that shows that safari hunting provides much more revenue to those governments than photo safaris provide.

In our country hunters provide the economic incentive for keeping animals alive. Take away hunting and who would create such an economic incentive? In other words, would non hunters pick up the billions needed to manage wildlife in the United States? The answer is no. That is proven time after time when nonhunters have been asked to come up with funds for managing wildlife. It's always a battle. In fact, if we look at the budgets of state wildlife agencies, we see a downward trend in the amounts of funds they get from general revenues. In some states, there is no money given the state wildlife agency from general revenues. Hunting and fishing and associated activities of the state wildlife agency, generate it all.

The real truth is that total protection of any species, which is what the antis really want to do, doesn't work. Look at the white rhino. They are totally protected and yet the numbers still decline. The reason is that there is no legal economic incentive to keep the animals alive. And as long as value of the poached rhino horn exceeds the incentive created by wildlife viewing, rhino numbers will continue to decline. It is no wonder that more and more governments are considering legal recreational hunting for white rhinos, an endangered species, to save the species. Monies generated from rhino hunting could be used for management.

One of the major problems in all of this is the fact that some of those in our own U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service do not understand the basic logic of the economic incentive. They feel that if a species is threatened, then there should be no importation of trophies, and thus, no hunting. Now, I'm not advocating overshooting argali sheep. I'm just stating that even when numbers are low, you can, and must have recreational hunting, in order to create a need to keep such animals alive in a viable population. The anti's argument is that hunting should only be done when there are more animals than the habitat can carry (i.e., above biological carrying capacity). They also argue that there should only be hunting when there is no alternative means to reduce the population. If the courts buy this logic, the argali will suffer. And if the courts buy this logic, then it may well set a precedent leading to further cutbacks in hunting for other species.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has just withdrawn its proposal to list the argali in Tajikstan, Mongolia, and Kyrgyzstan as "endangered". The antis are going to sue the USFWS for making this withdrawal, even though the argali is not endangered by any means. Conservation Force reports that the argali's are better off today than they were ten years ago. Several of my bowhunting friends have hunted this species in recent years and reported seeing hundreds of sheep.

Where will this all end? The courts will decide. Let's just hope that they rule in favor of the sheep, and all other threatened species around the world that are legally hunted, that are still out there because legal hunting creates the economic incentive to keep them alive.