Abstract
There is a lack of consensus among conservationists regarding the association between trophy hunting and wildlife poaching. Anti-hunting groups argue that trophy hunting is against animal welfare and contributes to wildlife population decline so it must be refuted. On the other hand, pro-hunting groups for advocate regulated hunting as an essential tool for supporting habitat protection and reducing crimes. Regulated hunting creates incentives for conservation through direct and indirect methods and reduces wildlife poaching in areas where ecotourism cannot be practically viable. We used fifteen years' trophy hunting and poaching of African elephant (Loxodonta africana), lion (Panthera leo), Cape buffalo (Syncerus caffer), Common Zebra (Equus quagga), hippopotamus (Common Hippotamus amphibious) and Greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) from Selous and Rungwa game reserves in Tanzania. The results showed that there is no evidence of influence of regulated hunting on poaching rate for all species with exception of African elephant. Poaching rate of African elephant was found to be higher than the rate of regulated hunting because of limited number of quota set by Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and international restriction of elephant hunting imposed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The study suggests that the contentions to stop trophy hunting because of an increase in poaching incidents have no empirical justification. Thus, more effort should be on anti-poaching activities ensuring the adherence to legal hunting regulations. Key words: Poaching, hunting, trophy, conservation, biodiversity.
Highlights
IntroductionPro-hunters have thought that hunting provides resources for conservation and a feasible way of regulating wildlife populations while ant-hunters advocate for banning hunting
The rate of regulated legal hunting was found to be 14% higher than poaching incidences for the period between 2002 to 2016, with an average of 200 animals hunted in Rungwa and 400 animals hunted in Selous Game reserves
Selous have less numbers of animals taken through regulated hunting and less poached as that of wildlife offtake as compared to the Rungwa game reserve (Figure 4)
Summary
Pro-hunters have thought that hunting provides resources for conservation and a feasible way of regulating wildlife populations while ant-hunters advocate for banning hunting. It believes that it influences poaching and causes negative ecological impacts on species and ecosystems (Bennett et al, 2002; Badenhorst, 2003). This contention is refuted by the fact that regulated trophy hunting earns substance income that can be invested back to conservation and outweigh the challenges of ecotourism (Barnes and Novelli, 2007; Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999). Pro hunters insist further that in areas where legal hunting is taking place, there is poaching taking being practiced just as those areas where nonconsumptive utilization is practiced; giving clue that poaching is not geared by the existence of regulated trophy hunting (Baker, 1997; Eliason, 1999)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call