Anti-hunting bill would have hurt African wildlife

Paul Babaz is the president of Safari Club International.

The adjournment of the Connecticut Assembly has derailed Senate Bill 20, legislation that would have criminalized importation of elephant, lion, leopard, rhino and giraffe parts from Africa into the state. Hunters and wildlife conservationists around the world, especially in Africa, are overjoyed to see this development.

The bill could only be described as the singling out and demonizing of law-abiding hunters in Connecticut.

SB 20 was a reckless, partisan assault on the basics of wildlife science. Far from protecting certain animals, the drafters of SB 20 would have condemned them to more poaching and further population decline.

It has been well documented, especially in Africa, that the revenue generated from legal hunting provides essential funding to conservation and anti-poaching efforts conducted by local law enforcement. In developing countries, anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of the revenues are paid back into the local community.

Legal, regulated hunting in Africa is closely managed and typically quite expensive. Revenues per hunt vary significantly depending on what animal is sought but can range into hundreds of thousands of dollars. A lion hunt can cost as much as $70,000 per hunt, while white rhinoceros hunts can cost upwards of $125,000. The outfitter and his staff will be paid additional fees daily for not only helping to facilitate the hunt but also for food and accommodations. The funding stream supports both public and private conservation efforts, and economic benefit also flows into local communities in the form of employment with hunting concessions.

The status of an animal species is also a factor in the hunting cash flow. Biologists employed by the state wildlife management agency issue fewer hunting licenses for species with smaller populations. So, demand is higher, and the costs rise accordingly. Hunting fees will fund the state’s wildlife management agency, or the money goes directly to the local or provincial authorities to fund anti-poaching efforts by local law enforcement.

Hunting offers more than direct flows of cash. A study conducted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature found that “hunting can be a positive driver for conservation because it increases the value of wildlife and the habitats it depends on, providing critical benefit flows that can motivate sustainable management approaches.” This is especially true for private land owners who rely on the conservation of their land and the animals on it to attract hunting dollars.

More specifically, we know that at least two of the species targeted by SB 20 owe their recovery directly to hunting funded conservation. In Africa in 1895, there were fewer than 100 white rhinos. Due to hunting programs, however, the IUCN estimates there are an estimated 20,000 white rhinos in Africa today. The same is true for black rhinos that went from 1,000 in the 1890s to more than 3,500 today. The IUCN warns that import restrictions on species targeted by SB 20 (including elephant and lion) could likely cause “serious declines” of those populations.

Considering the info detailed by the IUCN, it is highly unlikely that any SB 20 supporter during the legislative session consulted African wildlife managers or even the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service before introducing the bill and securing passage in the Senate. The bill ignores the benefits that American hunters, including many from Connecticut, bring to African wildlife.

Rather, SB 20 was based on the erroneous belief that politicians in

Hartford know best how to manage wildlife in countries halfway across the globe. The truth is that by banning importation, SB 20 would have caused more harm than good. In addition to species targeted in SB 20, African bontebok, Asian markhor and Canadian wood bison all owe their recovery directly to international hunting.

Instead of seeking to criminalize Connecticut’s hunters, members of the Assembly should consider leaving wildlife conservation to the experts or to wildlife managers in the sovereign African countries responsible for these species.

The failure of SB 20 as a win for international hunting, which must be aggressively defended as a tool for conserving Africa’s most treasured species.