Course:ECON372/OK2019WT2/Topic18
Economics of Wildlife Management
Group #1
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/science/elephants-lions-africa-hunting.html
Summary:
This article by Rachel Nuwer discusses the nuanced effects big game trophy hunting has on wildlife management, conservation, and local economies in African nations such as Zimbabwe, Zambia, and South Africa. She begins by discussing how big game hunting can have negative impacts on wildlife and local economies if the concept is implemented poorly. However, she expresses that if big game hunting is implemented in areas with low levels of corruption and strict regulations it can provide a net benefit to wildlife and local communities as well. She cites Namibia's "communal conservancies" as a prime example of how revenues from big game hunting can work to support wildlife conservation across a vast region. She continues to discuss the moral nuances of allowing wealthy individuals to hunt threatened species. While the practice may seem unethical, it is important to recognize that micro-economic factors resulting from a moratorium on trophy hunting would have a direct effect on the population and habitat preservation for endangered species. She discusses how wildlife poses a direct threat to the safety and livelihoods of locals, this creates a disincentive to protect these animals and their habitats. She states that Zimbabwe's campfire communities (regions reliant on trophy hunting) "elephants destroyed over 17,000 acres of crops from 2010 to 2015. Along with other animals, elephants have killed 139 community members since 2010." The article continues to discuss how photographic tourism has the potential to make up lost revenues resulting from bans on trophy hunting for local landowners and conservation programs. She argues that in some regions with more developed infrastructure and amenities, traditional tourism has the potential to cover revenue losses resulting from banning trophy hunting. However, in most areas that rely on trophy hunting the terrain is quite rugged and there is little in the way of comfort, such as hotels or lodges that normal tourists would frequent on vacation. On the other hand, hunters often seek out isolation and ruggedness increasing the demand for trophy hunting in these regions. In order to transform these places into attractive regions for tourism, huge amounts of infrastructure must be built at a prohibitively high cost. The closing remarks of the article focuses on the importance of the micro-economic factors that would impact local communities if trophy hunting were to be banned and that the real threat to wildlife in Africa is illegal poaching.
Analysis:
The concept of funding conservation efforts through trophy hunting is a combined effort to conserve and increase the population of threatened species while simultaneously mitigating the negative change in net benefit locals must face as the wildlife stock increases. Figure 18-7 in Barry C Field's "Natural Resource Economics" illustrates the underlying rationale behind these programs. As you can see the local marginal willingness to pay curve for wildlife conservation (MWTPL) is significantly lower and steeper than the marginal willingness to pay curve for the rest of society (MWTPN) . This discrepancy is primarily due to the demand local communities have to convert protected habitat to agricultural land, and the fact that wildlife poses a significant danger to community members and property. This significantly lowers the benefits local communities receive from protecting wildlife and therefore reduces the efficient level of wildlife stock to point S2 . In contrast, members of society benefit from the existence value of these threatened species and thus desire a higher level of wildlife stock represented by point S1. As you can see in the graph an increase in wildlife stock to point S0 will result in a loss of net benefit for local communities equal to ΔNBL while the rest of society will see an increase in Net benefit equal to ΔNBN. This phenomenon is the reason why trophy hunting can be used to effectively increase wild life populations and promote conservation as the high fees paid by trophy hunters offset the loss in ΔNBL locals face which results in an increase in net benefit for both parties. As discussed in the article , it is essential that there is no corruption in the system or else the revenues from trophy hunting will be misappropriated meaning the loss in NBL resulting from the increase wildlife stock will not be offset and locals will have to find other sources of revenue such as agricultural development or even poaching. This concept can be equally applied to traditional forms of tourism such as photography as long as the revenues generated from the activity are large enough to offset the loss in NBL. However, as was discussed this may not be a feasible option in certain regions as the cost of infrastructure required to attract traditional tourists would shift the aggregate marginal cost curve (MCL=MCN) upwards as local economies face significant increases in cost. It is also important to note that in order for these programs to succeed they must be managed scientifically with an important focus on maintaining the health and population of wildlife stocks. In order for conservation efforts to be effective, the enforcement of poaching must be extremely proactive and successful in the region. Without effective controls the program will be unable to effectively manage the region as they lose control of the impact humans have on wildlife stocks (i.e. it is impossible to scientifically manage wildlife if you can't set a limit on the number of individuals killed by human activity.). The success of anti-poaching initiatives is directly impacted by the elasticity of demand for illegal products such as ivory and black rhino horn. Field's illustrates the concept effectively in figure 18-8 which shows how the inelasticity of demand for black rhino horn has led to unintended consequences stemming from a ban on rhino horn. Since the demand curve for rhino horn is extremely steep the restriction in supply resulting from the ban has increased price of rhino horn making poaching a much more lucrative activity than before the ban. It is important to factor in the demand curves for poached products and the nature of these illegal markets when considering implementing a conservation initiative funded by trophy hunting revenues. For example if the increase in poaching enforcement stemming from increased trophy hunting revenues result in a net increase in species population (i.e. Number of animals saved from poaching≥Number of animals permitted to be hunted for sport) there is potential for the program to be successful if it is managed effectively. In summary the key take away from this article is that trophy hunting in Africa is a very nuanced issue and it is extremely important to look at the micro-economic factors that drive and affect the conservation of threatened wildlife in these regions.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 20 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 50 | Nicely done! |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 10 | |
| Total | 100 |
Group #2
Summary:
This article addresses the concerns about the vast decrease in the number of caribou in the George River Caribou Heard which is in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The numbers have decreased from almost 1 million to just a few thousand and highlights how they have failed to implement sufficient wildlife management. It discusses how due to the region being inuit-governed, there seemed to be no direct measures for non-indigenous people and a lack of communication with them which has meant the herd have not been well protected from hunting or other illegal activities. The article goes on to explain how it is becoming increasingly difficult to pinpoint exactly how sustainability can be achieved with the concept of ‘maximum sustainable yield’ being readily referred to. John Fa states that this is makes sustainability difficult as it is a challenge measuring carrying capacity and the rate of population growth. It concludes by addressing the need for indigenous groups to come to an agreement on how these herds should be managed to ensure long term stability.
Analysis:
The article emphasises just how important wildlife management can be to not only the animals themselves but also humans who rely on them. As stated, the caribou population in the George River Caribou Herd deceased by a substantial amount, almost 98% from 2001 to 2018. Chapter 18 discusses how human institutions and values can make it difficult to protect wildlife from human activities. This is due to the property rights over land and how they can therefore “devote their land to any lawful purpose”. Meaning, they can exploit these animals to whatever law abiding extent. The land that is home to these caribous is owned by indigenous people, and it is stated that the reduction in the number of caribous is not due to their hunting practices. These groups are known for hunting within their means and “utilising as much of the animal as possible”. They not only have a heavy reliance on them for food and clothing etc, but also these animals have existence values to their way of life.
The problem in this case does not come down to having to cooperate with other owners of the land in order to maintain numbers, as it is only the indigenous people that hold the proper rights. It is more they are unable to implement the correct measures to prevent non-indigenous people from accessing them.
Whilst a ban of hunting and stricter measures to prevent other groups exploiting the caribous may lessen the severity of the situation, it is important to understand the growth dynamics of caribous in order to ensure the extent of their policies are sufficient. Acquiring a rough estimate on the extent of illegal hunting would allow to see if any other crucial factors are affecting the herd. If for instance, they find that hunting can not be the sole reason for the depletion, then looking at the growth dynamics will be vital to understanding the necessary steps to combat the problem. For example, the article mentions disease, predators, climate change impacts have also made contributions to this. Therefore, despite the appearance of a simple solution this article shows the different considerations that have to be look at when implementing wildlife management and how it is vital to use this to protect and sustain the wildlife.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 15 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 45 | Nice recognition of how property rights issues exist here. The connection to the value of the existence of the herd that differs between the FN people and the settler people is also interesting. Settlers don't live in the area, and enjoy the hunt. The FN people enjoy the health of the landscape, which includes the sustained herd. |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 10 | |
| Total | 90 |
Group #3
Summary
In an article published by The World Animal Protection on March 23, 2020, declares that trade of wildlife internationally is now banned due to the COVID-19 virus which has spread across the globe. This includes animals poached from their natural habitat, aminals bred in captivity, in which they are usually taken and placed in smaller enclosures relative to their natural habitat. By breeding and holding animals in captivity, the spread of disease becomes apparent. Leading to not only human suffering and loss but also great losses economically. The COVID-19 outbreak had originally been suspected that snakes sold in Wuhan were the source of the outbreak through human to animal handling. Since the initial outbreak, China has banned the consumption of land-animals, Vietnam also followed suit shortly after. Limiting our contact to reptiles and animals of any sort is essential not only to reduce pandemics but also for the wellbeing of animals. The article also highlights that Canada is one of the largest importers of ball pythons. Ther are an estimated 28,000 ball pythons kept as household pets. Little does one know that once the pythons are sold anyone who comes into contact with them may contract salmonella.
Analysis
Many statistics show that animals are better off and live longer in the wild than in captivity. We can see that being the case with Seaworld, as their orca when in captivity for a prolonged amount of time may become aggressive, their dorsal find flop over to the side which isn’t normal in the ocean. In addition, coming into contact with live animals puts humans at risk of contracting viruses, or illnesses. Potentially, a worldwide pandemic can have a significant impact on the economy. An excellent example is that of a current pandemic, COVID-19. This virus has had significant impacts on our economy in just 3 weeks. It disrupted our global supply chain of goods. Small businesses and bigger box stores have closed down or will close down. Our stock market is sinking despite the Bank of Canada and the Federal Reserve’s efforts and cutting interest rates to near zero. Fiscal and Monetary measures are being taken, yet our economy still suffers. Its almost unbelievable that it took a worldwide pandemic, that still isn’t over to ban the trade of wildlife. Clearly, in this case, our costs outweighed the benefits of trading wildlife. The COVID-19 pandemic is not only going to negatively affect us socially but also economically. Unfortunately, we cannot predict the long-lasting economic effects, but as of right now, it is not looking so good
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 13 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 15 | I don't see much use of course concepts. Is banning wildlife trade now efficient? Will it increase or reduce poaching? Are there alternative, incentive based policies that could be implemented? |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 7 | |
| Total | 55 |
Group #4
Article Link: https://indianexpress.com/article/world/brawling-monkeys-wandering-deer-blame-coronavirus-6320335/
Summary:
The article “Brawling monkeys. Wandering deer. Blame coronavirus” by New York Times, illustrates the current wildlife impact due to Coronavirus among Asian countries. In Thailand, wild monkeys are messing up the city as well as blocking the traffic due to a lack of food sources. These violent monkeys live in Lopburi, home of the country’s Phra Prang Sam Yot monkey temple. The monkeys are usually fed by tourists, which became hard for monkeys to find the food during the world’s quarantine season. According to the Tourism Authority of Thailand, the number of tourists from China, the largest tourist source in Thailand, dropped 85 percent last month. And it's not the only place where some species could be impacted by the sharp reduction of visitors. Moreover, the same impact occurred in Japan’s Nara deer. Due to a lack of food sources from tourists, deer are searching for food around the urban city area such as subway stations. As a result, huge numbers of animals are being forced to fend for themselves. This current situation is the effect of feeding wild animals and if no one is feeding them after they get used to being fed, they become hyper aggression towards humans. Ultimately, When humans feed animals in urban areas, they unwittingly establish high animal densities in locations that otherwise would not be able to sustain them.
Analysis:
The article “Brawling monkeys. Wandering deer. Blame coronavirus” by New York Times, the main issue addressed by the author is wildlife in an urban or suburban area that affects the human environment. The situation caused by coronavirus can be analyzed by textbook chapter 18 Wildlife Management. There are two major reasons when wildlife engaging to the human environment: 1) “the biology, ecology, and population dynamics of the particular animal species at issue and 2) the human demography and attitude that determine the social benefits and costs of animal populations” In our case, the second reason which animals fed by tourists would create social costs; therefore, wildlife animals are settling in the area where humans social benefits are met. I strongly believe that the solution to this situation is to stop feeding wild animals; even though, it creates economic benefits to society. Once wild animals are dependent on food from humans, people are not able to support animals during stations like Coronavirus. Moreover, according to Christopher Schell, an urban ecologist at the University of Washington in Tacoma, he also stated that “The best thing we can do for these animals is to leave them alone.” On the other hand, some people might argue that it is humans responsible since we have already fed them. However, Schell says “Most animals living in urban environments already have flexible diets, so chances are good that a lot of these animals are going to be OK.” Ultimately, what is important in the future decision that we make towards wildlife whether to keep feeding them or not. We have to take into consideration the costs arise from economic benefits as well.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 20 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 40 | |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 8 | |
| Total | 88 |
Group #5
Summary:
“Americans beliefs about wildlife management are changing” written by Colorado State University explains independent values and beliefs about wildlife management across the U.S.. Over a 50-state study of scenario-based wildlife questions, it was discovered that the number of traditionalists, those who believe that animals should be available for human-use only, have decreased and numbers of mutualists, those who believe animals should have the same rights as humans, have increased. The study also indicated that when there are strong beliefs of traditionalist views in state, there are higher supports of private property rights and focusing on economic growth. In opposition, when a state is dominated by mutualist beliefs, people tend to focus on protecting wildlife and creating regulations for environmental protection. The president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and executive director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Ed Carter, stated that the study will assist agencies with interacting with traditional partners and the changing demographics of wildlife interests and organizations. As well, there is not one single resolution to create “broader relevancy for state fish and wildlife agencies” and will allow agencies to develop understandings of what society believes in and wants.
In western states, research discovered that there was a 4.7% increase in mutualist beliefs and a 5.7% in traditionalists beliefs and over the U.S., 28% of the population are traditionalists and 35% are mutualists. The decline in traditionalist numbers are a result of modernization further meaning increases in income levels, increasing numbers of those achieving higher levels of education and more immigration to urban areas as they have less direct encounters with wildlife and conservation. People interact with animals and nature indirectly through TV, social media and through news outlets “where animals may be depicted as more human-like”. Even though shifts in values from changing societal conditions is a slow process, it has possessed a fast-cultural shift to preserving wildlife; it is crucial to continue this ongoing pattern to sustain future conditions for generations to come.
Analysis:
Chapter 18 of our textbook carries a common theme throughout it, that being the balance between the preservation and economics of wildlife. Humans counteract the preservation of landscapes and animals through acts such as hunting or expanding onto natural landscapes. The idea of having a traditionalist viewpoint when it comes to wildlife is becoming less modern, leading to an imbalance towards the side of preservation and animal rights. This is interesting to economics as we could possibly see a drop in economic stimulation when it comes to public spending on things such as hunting. As more people develop this mutualist viewpoint for animals, the less we will see of things like big game hunting, or even recreational fishing. In the section of the textbook titled “The Economics of Sport Hunting”, they estimate the total amount spent on hunting in 2011 to be around $90 billion. While there are definitely benefits, as shown in the effort-benefits functions in the textbook, with less people participating in these activities there will be less money generated from them and more acts of wildlife preservation.
As stated in the article these changes in values could lead to many interesting changes for wildlife managers. This move forward of the relationship between humans and wildlife could lead to changes both commercial and non-commercial. We could see a larger increase in ecotourism as people seek to learn more about habitats and the animals that live within them. As well as population changes within said habitats, less hunting for sport could mean that these areas could be nearing carrying capacity, meaning more competition between animals and further depletion of food resources. With this shift in culture, it seems the more modern society gets when it comes to the management of wildlife, the more factors have to be considered and the more complicated it can become.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 20 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 38 | Should related to model on the value from hunting and the cost of hunting. The social cost of hunting increases as the mutualist share of the population increases. There are more people who are made worse off as a result of the harvest of an animal. The existence of the animal to a mutualist orientation is a public good, where to the hunter it is a private good. |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 9 | |
| Total | 87 |
Group #6
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/divide-over-spring-bear-hunt-proposal-pits-hunters-against-conservationists-1.5431752
Summary:
For spring bear hunt, government of Ontario cancelled it two decades ago, but this project was restarted as a pilot project in 2014 by Liberals. After this spring, this project would expire, and government is proposing to make the hunt official next year. Meanwhile, they will estimate the impact on bear populations every year. The original decision---cancel hunt bear is not a suitable, just due to emotional rhetoric. According to the new proposal, hunting mother bears is not allowed, even it is illegal. The province will monitor bear population to make sure it sustainability. The spring hunt can generate $2.4 million annually, through the sale of around 25,000 bear licences. There was a report showed bear hunters would like to spend $50.6 million on the spring and fall hunt. Especially, they have cost accounting for $13.1 million on the spring pilot project season. At the same time, this policy can boost the tourism in local area. However, the tourism industry would not like to support the cost of advertising for hunting bear if it's only a pilot project that would probably end someday.
Analysis:
For deciding how many wild bears we could hunt each year, first we need to define the maximum sustained yield of bears in Ontario. However, there are many othe different types of value of wildlife, for examples, value for recreational hunting, ecotourism like wildlife viewing, biological diversity, and existence value. With all these other sources of value, it is even more difficult to identify a socially optimal wildlife stock in a particular case like this. According to Participation and Expenditures in Wildlife-Related Activities, 2011, Americans spent 16.9 billion dollars on big game sport hunting, which shows that it is a big industry that may boost up the local economy. From the textbook, the effort-benefit function for recreational hunting reflects the fact that people obtain benefits from the activity of hunting, not solely from the number of animals taken. Ontario’s new proposal on hunting bears restrict hunters to hunt only one bear each year, this is a bag limit. By setting a bag limit, authorities attempt to reduce the benefits accruing to hunters on a typical hunting trip.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 20 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 42 | You hit many ideas, but could have explained them better. I am happy that you recognized the other values beyond the bear as purely something to harvest. |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 9 | |
| Total | 91 |
Group #7
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 0 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 0 | |
| Summary (20) | 0 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 0 | |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 0 | |
| Total | 0 |
Group #8
link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-bcs-approach-to-wildlife-management-needs-major-ethical-reform/
Summary:
In August 2018, four scientist/writers from the Raincoast Conservation Foundation wrote the article titled "BC's approach to wildlife management needs major ethical reform" for the Globe and Mail. In the article the authors commended the provincial government's 14 million dollar commitment to BC's wildlife management approach. The authors discussed BC's diverse wildlife of 3800 known plant and animal species, the current policies in place regarding wildlife management, and gave advice on how to incorporate credible scientific support into the new policy decisions.
When this article was written wildlife management in BC was typically focused on sustained consumptive exploitation (hunting/trapping) rather than on conservation. It does not consider ethics or the non-use wildlife benefits of other BC residents. The BC government hopes to reform the current policies and back up the new decisions with scientific studies. The article presents four requirements for "incorporating key hallmarks of science" including: 1) clear objectives to meet which have an ethical basis, 2) strong evidence to ensure informed decisions, 3) Transparency to the public on public funding use and wildlife management practices, 4) peer reviewed by external, independent sources to ensure the approaches used are credible. To conclude, the article recognizes society's changing values on wildlife management which were demonstrated by the government's decision to end the provinces grizzly bear hunt.
Analysis:
From an economical perspective, the primarily consumption-focused wildlife management policies the government was looking to reform were not conducive to a socially efficient wildlife use equilibrium. Going back to the foundation work in this course, we learned in chapter two of the Natural Resource Economics textbook about non-use values. These arise from the simple existence of a natural resource and were seemingly not appropriately considered in the past policies. In the consumptive users best interest, we can find the maximum sustainable yield of a wildlife species that can be harvested without reducing the stock size for future years. We were first introduced to this concept in chapter 13 for fish stocks, but it can be applied to many of the diverse species in BC's wilderness. Like the article mentions, policies centralized around consumptive cost-benefit analysis may not consider externalities, the "varied interests of all citizens",or ethical concerns. To find a more socially optimal policy structure, the BC government has committed 14 million dollars to their wildlife management approach.
Chapter 18 discusses the economics of sports hunting. This is a fairly large american past-time with 37.4 million hunting/fishing participants and an estimated total expenditure of 90 billion dollars in 2011 according to the textbook figures. To manage sport hunting, authorities have used many command-and-control regulations such as closed hunting seasons, lotteries for hunting licences, and bag limits for hunters. The BC government used similar measures to disincentive trophy hunting of BC grizzly bears. In the article's example, this was done by ending the province's grizzly bear trophy hunt. It is encouraging to see the shift towards a more ethical and socially optimal wildlife management approach and thorough research is necessary when making these new policies.The article's emphasis on scientific support for reforming the wildlife management policies aligns with economic practices of objectively determining and weighing costs and benefits.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 19 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 46 | |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 10 | |
| Total | 95 |