Hunting for the logic?
Chris Rickleton's article on Eurasianet
A couple of interesting items dropped into my Inbox last week.
One was entitled “Why Snow Leopards need help” and was about a project based in Mongolia aimed at protecting the Snow Leopard, an extremely rare “big cat” found in Central Asia. There are only something between 3500 and 7000 Snow Leopards left in the world and so they count as endangered and are listed in the Red Data Book of Endangered Species. (The project, incidentally, is up for an award in the BBC’s World Challenge.)
The other was an article by a Bishkek based journalist called Chris Rickleton on the site euasianet.org about a new draft law on Hunting in Kyrgyzstan. It was interesting because it was the first I had heard about the proposed new law.
The opening sentence was quite a shocker: “Lawmakers in Kyrgyzstan are considering a bill that would turn endangered species into fair game.”
Now, hunting is an activity which is very popular in Kyrgyzstan. It was part of the nomadic way of life and hunting with eagles, in particular was a highly prized skill. The nomadic Kyrgyz sometimes also hunted with hounds – and a special breed, (the “taigan”), was particularly bred to this. These days, however, hunting is also seen as a form of “tourism” – with people coming from all over the world, (but mainly it seems from Germany and America), attracted by the variety of “game” available, for example: Marco Polo, or argali; ibex; wolf; mountain partridge (keklik); pheasant; goose and hare.
During the Soviet period, hunting was strictly controlled by the central government, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union, (and possibly even for some time before that), that control weakened and both legal, licensed, hunting and poaching has increased leading to a decline in population for many of the species which are sought after as prey.
Many species are hunted, (some 30 species of birds and 20 species of animals), but special licenses are required and the export of trophies may be illegal without specific permissions. At the moment, licenses are issued for a number of species which are considered “rare” but not for species that are listed as “endangered”. It’s this distinction which the proposed change in the law would change.
The lisences are issued in strict accordance with fixed quotas for the numbers and types of animals that can be killed and their prices reflect the rarity. For example, only 70 Marco Polo licenses are issued each year – for animals older than 8 years old, (which “no longer participate in reproduction”), at a cost of USD5000. It’s estimated that a full package can cost the hunter as much as USD20,000.
There is much criticism about the current system, much of it centring on the scope for corruption. Part of the funds raised from the licenses are supposed to go towards conservation measures but critics of the current system say that this doesn’t happen and the money disappears in the pockets of officials operating the system.
The Ministry and the German aid agency, (GIZ), which has been involved in drafting the new law, say that an improved system of regulation should help to diminish poaching and thus, in the long run, help to protect and increase the numbers of animals in the affected species.
Somehow, I don’t see it myself.
I haven’t been involved in any discussions on the topic, (and there is no reason why I should have been involved, any more than any other person, after all we don’t organize hunting trips and don’t have a vested interest in the subject), so my knowledge of the detail of the arguments on both sides is limited to what I have read in the press, (which basically means in Chris Rickleton’s article), drawing parallels with other debates on the topic, (for example, the debate about fox hunting that took place a few years ago and resulted in a ban on the sport), and applying logic to the situation as I understand it.
It seems to me, however, that the we are being told that there are problems with the current system and the way of dealing with those problems is to tighten the system of regulation. Personally, I have no problem with that. Although, as a rule, I am not too keen on introducing new systems of regulation unless a definite need can be demonstrated, in this case, as I understand it, the question is one of closing loopholes that allow the current system to be manipulated, or abused.
So, the next question, so it seems to me, is to ask if the proposed amendments will, in fact, do that. Some of the critics of the proposals have apparently been quick to highlight some shortcomings in the draft. On that I cannot comment. They are the experts, not me. So it seems reasonable to let them and the lawyers loose on the regulations and to see what they can come up with in order to improve them.
I suppose that the authorities, the Ministry and GIZ, can argue that this is exactly what has happened … and that it’s just that some people don’t like the suggestions for “improvements” that they’ve come up with. Then again, that’s the reason why, it seems to me, Kyrgyz law has a built in provision for consultations to take place before a legislative act, (laws or regulations), can be implemented, (the provision is laid down in the law “On Normative Acts”), and that’s the process we are going through now. I suppose that in extreme or emergency circumstances it may be necessary to short circuit the process and circumnavigate this provision, but I, for one, don’t see the need for that to happen here. So, let the consultations take place!
Although there are a number of criticisms of the new draft law, everyone seems to agree that the the real contentious issue is that it “allows for the shooting of several species of animals that are recorded in the Red Book”. There is contradiction, it seems to me, in declaring an animal as being endangered and therefore in need of protection and then setting up a system that allows for specimens to be hunted.
I do understand that where a particular animal proves to be a danger and a threat, that it might be necessary to sanction a hunt in order to prevent it from actually doing harm; and although that might imply sanctioning the “killing” the animal, it’s not necessarily the only option available as it might be possible to capture it and then relocate it to another area.
Personally, I have a problem in making the connection between extending the licensing system to cover other animals which are recognized as being “endangered” and the benefits that the proponents of these changes have suggested will result from them.
At the moment I cannot see a link of causation, (and, yes, I am aware that there is a whole philosophical debate about the nature of causation – yet alone demonstrating that one thing has caused another to happen!), between extending the list of animals for which hunting licenses can be granted and, for example, resolving the problem of poaching.
(Incidentally, in the article, the “expert” is quoted as saying “as strange as it sounds … the population of all animals, including Red Book [animals] will increase” – notice that, he says “will increase”. I think it is better to be a bit more cautious than that and say “should” because, as Benjamin Franklin once observed, there are very few things that are certain in life.)
It seems to me that this is an important point, (a vitally important point!), because the claim that it should lead to an increase in numbers for these particular species is based on it: that is, there will be fewer animals killed through licensed hunting than are currently killed by poachers. If we cannot be sure that the “brazen” activities of the poachers will be curtailed, (yet alone eliminated), then the hunters trophies will simply add to those kills by the poachers and contribute to the the decline in the population of the species.
There is another issue that concerns me: Writing new laws and regulations is all well and good, but having them on the statute books is not very helpful if they are not enforced. Strengthening the regulatory system on paper is one thing, but if it is to be effective then it has to be enforced, not simply enacted. That seems to require that are number of things are present. For example:
First, that it is enforceable. That it has been written in such a way as to be clear and unambiguous, to be reasonable and the measures are appropriate, can be applied and are consistent.
Secondly, That there is a commitment and will, (political or otherwise), on the part of the authorities as a whole and the individuals working in the system to make the system work and to enforce the law and the regulations.
Thirdly, that the people being charged with enforcing the regulations are given the resources and support that they need in order to enforce the legislation.
On a personal note: In case anyone reading this gets the wrong impression, let me make one thing clear: it’s not the case that I am opposed to hunting per se.
I recognize, for example, that our ancestors relied, (and many peoples around the world still rely), on hunting to provide food for themselves, their family and community. I also recognize that sometimes, as in the example I gave above, there is a case where it is necessary to organize a hunt to remove a specific animal which has become a danger to a community. In addition, I think that we have to recognize that different forms of hunting is an integral part of many traditional cultures around the world and may well have a legitimate role to play in that society, (which does not mean to say that it shouldn’t be regulated in some form or other). I also understand that people enjoy hunting as an activity which is not simply recreational but involves a whole range of knowledge and skills and which can be character forming.
On the other hand, I do have problems with one particular aspect of the psychology of hunting. For example, I find it difficult to understand the “hunter” who comes to Kyrgyzstan, spending considerable sums of money to travel herein the process, and then destroys the very thing that attracted him to the country in the first place.
In exactly the same way, I find it difficult to understand the tourist who wants to travel to remote and unspoilt places, but expects all the conveniences of the modern world to be available. Satellite communications may well make internet access available, but luxury hotels and haute cuisine may not be appropriate and, indeed, may be associated with environmental and social problems in the host communities.
I would like to go into the mountains in search of a snow leopard, a Marco Polo sheep, a lynx or a brown bear, but, personally, I would take a camera and not a gun. But, that’s a personal decision and although I don’t think that I would actually deprive anyone the opportunity of taking part in hunting, I would regulate the activity – and that’s what the debate is all about.
.
For the record: Apparently, something like 60 private firms offer Hunting activities – in hunting preserves which spread across 14 million hectares of the country. Eight million are administered by the State Hunting Agency, and the remainder is split between the Military Hunting Association, The Kyrgyz Hunting & Fishing Association and private hunting firms. The hunting season falls between mid August and the beginning of December, and then during March. It can be cold and windy, Kyrgyzstan having a Continental climate, and the conditions are such that hunters have to be in good physical condition.
We, (The Celestial Mountains Tour Company), are not one of those sixty-odd companies in that we don’t organize hunting tours.
Bishkek