In 1900, the southern white rhinoceros was the most endangered of the five rhinoceros species. Less than 20 rhinos remained in a single reserve in South Africa. By 2010, white rhino numbers had climbed to more than 20,000, making it the most common rhino species on the planet.
Saving the white rhino from extinction can be attributed to a change in policy that allowed private ownership of wildlife. While protecting the rhinos encouraging breeding, the ranchers were able to profit by limited trophy hunting.
Poaching for rhino horn, which is in high demand for medicinal and ornamental purposes, had also devastated the rhino population. CITES banned the commercial sale of rhino horn, which caused black market sales to sky rocket and encouraged poaching. If the ban were lifted, ranchers are ready to supply the market by harvesting the horns humanely, which then regrow just like fingernails.
Strong property rights and market incentives have provided a successful model for rhino conservation, despite the negative impact of command-and-control approaches that rely on regulations and bans that restrict wildlife use.
AM: I’m torn on this one. My free-market libertarian side applauds this approach. Attaching property rights to “common property” is a good way to preserve it, especially when government efforts fail. On the other hand, my “animal rights” side doesn’t like this at all. Animals are not “common property” in the first place. They should be able to live their lives without being murdered by greedy humans. Do we have to enslave them, and to make rhinos into human property to ensure that the species survives? I guess there is a “utilitarian” argument here. Kill a few rhinos for the sake of all rhinos. But in principle, it seems wrong to enslave things, and shoot them, no matter what the “end.”
On the other hand, in countries with weak political institutions, this may be the only viable option. The best option would be a law that protects rhinos from slavery and murder. But this is simply not possible in places with weak justice systems.
Thoughts?
AM, certainly seems a double edged sword doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, animals should not be property of anyone, as you say. However, in areas of the world lacking enforcement, the concept of allowing citizens to contain these animals for their own protection has been successful. Own protection of course stems from the incentive to profit, as you like so much!
Couldn't agree more with your best case: better protection through wildlife enforcement.
Better protection, of course, only works where the law is strong enough to implement serious enforcement. Many of the countries with endangered species are in Africa and Asia. They have very weak government institutions that cannot implement many basic laws, much less a more sophisticated protection of animals. It does seem that the private sector is the next best thing in these circumstances.
ReplyDeleteOne problem is that enshrining animal property rights perpetuate the idea that animals are in fact, property. At the root of the problem are human attitudes towards the animal kingdom. This solution does nothing to address that. So, are we protecting animals this way, or simply making human use of animals "more efficient/sustainable"?
Agreed, ideally animals could live without intervention, but practically, humans must act as their stewards, especially in South Africa.
ReplyDeleteHaving the experience of staying at a private game reserve in South Africa reminds me of how well property rights and markets work to protect animals.
The rangers certainly cared for their animals, educated about conservation, were proud showing us their farm, and good for them to make some money.
@TG: How is this a double edged sword? What is wrong in conserving animals using the profit motive? Animals flourish, everyone's happy, and the owner/ranger can feed his family.
The problem with saving animals "through profit" is that you are also by default "owning" them, which goes against the grain of any animal rights movement.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to see how well markets usually treat animals, check out almost any "meat" farm.
Nasty places.
Also, there has been many cases where animal protection has been improved in places where the government makes no action.
ReplyDeleteGroups like WWF and others have, in some cases, managed to convince people whose trade is to parade animals around on street corners to instead sell some good, which these institutions like WWF provide some or all of the start up capital.
Probably a petty exception, but one nonetheless.
Agreed, JLV: no way to have animal rights + animal ownership at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThe WWF and other movements attack the root of the issue, namely, demand for certain animal products through activism and education. This is sort of a long run approach.