Baraza

The first of many moral quandaries spread through the Handshake camp the other night as they were introduced to what, at first glance, seems like a darker side to conservation; that of allowing hunters into conservancies so they can kill particular animals.

Throughout the expedition, mainly over dinner, staff of the ‘Great Primate Handshake’, are busy encouraging volunteers to discuss practical and theoretical points on conservation in the field. There were, of course, varying views and comments, as thoughts and opinions were thrown around the circle of friends with still no agreement.

The idea is this. In conservancies with no natural predators, animals live a lot longer, their teeth grow too long and are unable to eat, slowly dying of starvation.
So is it right to encourage people to hunt in what primarily is a safe-haven?

There are of course many sides to the argument. Money paid to hunt (from hunter to conservancy) can go to help feed and look after other animals, and the animal is put out of struggling over several days before it dies.
On the other side, are you supporting the hunting trade? Are you further creating an artificial environment? Are you encouraging a natural environment, one of predator and prey?
Many more questions arose, leaving most undecided. So if you have any ideas to help sort out this problem, please do say…

Thanks,
Jonathan.
The Great Primate Handshake
 http://www.primatehandshake.org/