Responsibility, Permission and the need for anti-poaching
support.
According to the latest media controversy
(CNN) an American dentist
took the life of a protected African lion, Cecil. While there was an assumption at the
time that it was legal and protected under his guide’s direction and advice,
this has led to widespread international criticism both from the
hunter-be-damned-period folks and the conservation-hunting-is-based-on-sound-science
camps.
I pose two issues that I haven’t
seen played out yet. Responsibility and permission.
First responsibility. A controversial response especially in
the US is that we have various rights that should be protected. However, the
application and practical reality of many of these rights comes with
responsibility. With responsibility comes some very difficult decisions based
on complex scenarios and realities. The African lion within park boundaries and
tagged for study is protected. While
African National Park management engage
widely and as possible in programs that limit poaching, they also allow, through
a permit process, hunting and export of endangered species. Much of the argument
behind potential approval would be scientifically verified population and
behavior controls. However, particularly with the African lion as it faces placement on the
Endangered Species List, according to
Scientific American and
National Geographic, it poses a unique challenge. We are ultimately responsible
for the loss of habitat that puts these magnificent creatures (not just lions)
on the brink; we all collectively (yes even the hunters) are also ultimately responsible for sound management
techniques that allow these creatures to recover and thrive. We need to take
responsibility for the fact that lions may be extinct soon and do everything we
can to prevent this from happening. No one will be hunting lions if they are
gone. No one will appreciate or experience the wonder of a real African lion if
they are gone. I spoke with a Maori elder who said that if this happens we as humans are reduced, personally and collectively lessened in our existence to be missing any extinct species. The dentist responded to critics saying that he was unaware that
the lion was protected and that hired guides lead him to understand that this
was a legal target. I would say this is a typically weak response, I
acted the best I could given the info I had, but someone else is responsible
for my mistake. It is weak and it is dangerous in this case. The hunter is the
one who pulled the trigger and so is responsible for all the decisions that are
associated with exercising the right to do so. Much like a police officer should be
responsible for firing his weapon in any situation there is room for
mistakes and controversies to arise as we have seen all too many times in this
country. This does not excuse responsibility. Instead of blaming someone else,
however, we need to begin by accepting our responsibility for our decisions,
our mistakes, and the response to fix the myriad of complex situations
surrounding not only this situation, but countless others. Prevention would mean
understanding the realities and gravitas of the situation and the consequences
of any and all actions including pulling the trigger. Acting must also mean understanding that the consequences may be far reaching and may lessen the experience and existence of others.
Permission. Even though you have “permission” does not make
it acceptable to do so. This also applies to self-defense. Just because you have
legal precedence for lethal self-defense doesn’t mean that is the best course
of action.
Robin Wall Kimmerer discusses the idea of asking permission in very
poetic and compelling ways in her brilliant book
Braiding Sweetgrass. While I
think this should be standard reading for every outdoorsperson, she brings up
some interesting perspectives that can be applied here for perspective. We must
ask permission before we take. Often we just assume we can take, because there
is so much abundance in our society, especially in America, that it is part of
our mindset, our behavior. No one claims this and I want it, so I take it. Did
we ask permission? Do we really understand the entire story?
If we are not the center of the universe, then do we have an obligation to ask to be part of it? Not demand to be a part of it? Kimmerer takes this to the next level by
asserting that the sweetgrass, the beaver, the tree, and in this case, the lion has a say in this
process. That as a being, as a character in the play of lion conservation, they, that is the lions,
have a right to a point of view. While it can be controversial to think about
asking a lion permission, (how do you start that conversation?) It highlights
that we do not, will not respect nature until we start asking for permission to
take. My assumption would be that because of the scientific study and
subsequent protections, the lion’s response would have been to not give permission.
But I don’t know. I didn’t ask. I also assume the dentist didn’t ask. Scientifically
the condition may be one that in some circumstances an older male lion can be
taken in order to protect the lion population and the rhino population;
however, how do we know which ones? Are we sure beyond a doubt? Have we fully
asked permission and had the details verified? Can we rely on that information
and verification? In this case the dentist assumed he did, but didn’t, cannot verify
and thus should face the responsibility of consequences connected to his
decision.
I have seen and heard conservation arguments that compare
this situation to white tail deer and the need for population culling. The
science is clear given that species in that place and at that time given these
environmental conditions. A deer overpopulation cannot be managed the same way
as a dwindling lion population. Yes, the rhino population is a factor, but
enough to support the trophy hunting that is taking place?
I’m curious. A
hunter needs to be very well informed about the target and its existence among
a larger population and ecosystem. Ecosystem management is controversial in and
of itself and science is gaining even a small perspective of the intricacies of
species relationships. Kimmerer even finds that taking, as in the "Honorable Harvest", or responsible harvesting, in various situations can ensure the survival, even the thriving of various species. However, we cannot go blind into the woods, the jungle, the garden and kill haphazardly,
we have a responsibility to understand the situation, the reality, the
consequences of our actions and duty to ask permission not only of science, of
management, of those we are with, but also of the population in question, of
the target and the community, the ecosystem.
I knew a guy who used to hunt wild elk. He still hunts today,
but with a wide angle lens instead of a gun. He understood that he had legal
permission, but a responsibility to honor the living elk, not by killing it,
but by ensuring that it continued to live. His photography has been published
and further celebrates the wonder of the elk more so than a figure head in his
house. He understands there is a tradition of hunting, but given the stresses
on the elk population in that region he understands he also has a responsibility to protect
the herd and make sure it continues to thrive. We need to do the same for not
only the African Lion, but all other wild animals.
We should not say do not hunt, but we need to understand the
ecosystem stresses, population numbers and stresses, and the legal issues
behind all hunts. If we have permission legally, eco-systematically, and by
each and every target, then I do not see the reason to deny the right to hunt.
If we do not, then is there a better way to celebrate and conserve the target
than hunting and killing it? We need to start to realize that a vast majority
of majestic animals may become extinct or endangered on our watch because of
overhunting, poaching, and habitat destruction. (read: overtaking without full permission or responsibility) This needs to stop and we need to take up responsibility to that end. Otherwise collectively we face a less vibrant and rich existence. Can and should photography be a beneficial alternative?
In the meantime I challenge you to practice this in your own
life, reflect on your responsibility to all living things, especially ones in
your care, even on your plate. Reflect on the permission and appreciation you
have with the ecosystem and community you are an integral part of. Reflect on
the gifts that the earth can provide, but if we take too much or not the right individuals, then what are
the consequences? Begin an internal and external dialogue asking permission,
giving thanks, and being responsible for our health, upkeep and care as well as
the various beings of the earth, plant and animal, wild and domestic, prey and
predator. We cannot sustain ourselves on this earth if we continue to deny this
responsibility, take without permission, and ignore, blame others for, and deny the consequences of our
actions.
That being said hunters are funding anti-poaching programs
with huge permit fees. This is buying permission and the assumption of
responsibility. Wildlife crime and habitat destruction is still rampant in Africa. The exotic animal
trade supports a practice that has real and damaging natural effects. It needs to be shut down, not just by governments, but by individuals. If we also collectively
embrace this idea of responsibility and seeking permission, we need to find a
grass roots way to crowdfund anti-poaching programs
(IAPF) in ways that lead us
to to provide an alternative to hunting. It leads us to call for the official shutting down and review of hunting permits until scientific
and management understanding of population recuperation efforts have lead us to conclude that
the lion, rhino, elephant, etc. populations are truly safe and sustainable.
Thank you for reading and take care.
