This unscientific approach should be replaced as much as possible by the use of traditional knowledge to resolve human-animal conflicts by local governments. The way farmers in Rajasamand treated Nilgai should serve as a model. Farmers studied Nilgai`s behavior and developed various measures – such as changing the cultivation pattern, using shiny materials, scarecrows, acoustics and animal droppings – to counter the threat of Nilgai`s destructive plants. In some areas, the use of technology has proven to be very effective. For example, Valaparai District (Tamil Nadu) introduced the use of SMS to increase community engagement in elephant treatment. The idea was to shorten the response time of forest managers and build community trust in officials. Similarly, Telangana is developing bioacoustics technology with the help of Tollywood`s sound engineers. Other inexpensive means such as the use of barrier plants, human hair as a respiratory tract repellent, attachment of colored saris to create an illusion of human presence, the use of egg solutions and branching are recommended by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. As separate ecological brothers from the supercontinent Gondwana in the Triassic (250-200 million years ago), India and Africa have great similarities in their fauna and flora. Many species such as leopards, lions and elephants look alike.
These similarities are much greater when we look at the body parts of these animals (for example, the skull or skin) rather than the entire animal. A thriving legal trade in trophies could actually encourage illicit trade. India is already under enormous pressure on its wildlife, with species such as tigers, lions, elephants, rhinos, leopards and snakes in high demand in the international market. In fact, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) has received requests from the public to issue trophy import permits from African countries such as South Africa, Cameroon, Namibia and Zimbabwe. MoEF&CC sources say the ministry received few applications before 2010, but the number has increased. As of February 2015, the ministry had received a total of approximately 250 applications to import animal trophies. These species are hunted in Africa by Indian hunting enthusiasts and imported to India in the form of whole animal mounts, shoulder mounts, skulls, skins, horns, scrotums, feet and hooves. In February 2014, MoEF&CC took a political decision on the issue, banning the import of trophy items from CITES-listed species or doppelgängers of species protected under the 1972 Wildlife Protection Act. It also limited the number of imports of these items to 20 per person per year. Given the difficulties in distinguishing similar species, implementation of the law remains a challenge.
And the supervisory authorities are sorely understaffed. Imported wildlife trophies are inspected at ports by inspectors from the Wildlife Crime Bureau (WCCB), India`s designated CITES control centre, or sent by customs officers to regional offices for further examination. If no non-compliance is found, a clearance certificate is issued. However, if a violation is detected, further action will be taken. The mechanism sounds good, but given the limited capacity of the WCCB and the scale of international trade, the challenge is enormous. This is why MoEF&CC has been thinking about strengthening the WCCB. Trophy hunting is not a conservation tool Trophy hunting may be an important tool for species conservation in some countries, but it is not nature conservation per se, especially in the context of India. Although many hotels, government institutions and private homes continue to display wildlife trophies in the form of mounted animal heads, stuffed animals, horns and ivory tusks, we must try to prevent this practice in accordance with our ethos of species conservation.
This is necessary for the long-term benefits of Indian and global wildlife resources. Hunting was prohibited under the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1972 (Protectio). It is illegal to hunt animals for sport, but in some circumstances it is legal. These circumstances are as follows: Africa is a paradise for wildlife. And so do hunters. The death of Cecil the Lion (pictured above) in Zimbabwe in July 2015 reignited the global debate on the wildlife trophy trade. Cecil lived in Hwange National Park before he was killed by Walter Palmer, an American dentist who paid $55,000 for the hunt. A global outcry against the incident and practice followed. Many airlines have banned the carriage of animal trophies on flights. Environmentalists have called on the U.S. government to ban the import of hunting trophies.
It should be noted that the African lion population has declined across the continent, mainly due to habitat loss and conflicts with humans. The continent has fewer than 30,000 lions, a drop of more than 50% since 1980. Much of this decline is due to poaching, although trophy hunting has also played an important role. Globally, the value of illegal wildlife trade is estimated at $19 billion per year and is growing at an alarming rate. Legal trade also costs $300 billion a year. The United States and Europe have about 18 million “big game hunters” (people who hunt large wildlife). According to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), between 1981 and 2012, three-quarters of all lion trophy exports were sent to just five countries – France, Germany, South Africa, Spain and the United States. In the past five years, 21 million wild animals have entered the United States legally, as well as 13 million kilograms of specimens such as caviar. Over the past five years, the U.S. government has approved the import of nearly 60,000 trophies of endangered species.
Trophy Business: Pros and Cons Recreational trophy hunting is the driving force behind a multi-million dollar industry. The money is used for nature conservation and securing the livelihoods of local communities. Hunting advocates insist that trophy hunting can encourage conservation. However, given the widespread illegal hunting around the world, the activity has been criticized. Changes in the reproductive pattern of species, reduced genetic diversity and adverse effects on the ecosystem are some of the negative aspects associated with hunting. In fact, many countries like Kenya, Botswana and Zambia have already banned trophy hunting. The industry is expanding in Southern Africa and Tanzania, but is stable or declining in Central and West Africa. According to Transparency International, hunting money fuels corruption in countries such as Zimbabwe, Zambia and Tanzania, which allow hunting in dangerously high numbers. The American bison has only one pleural cavity and can therefore be killed by lung fire fired by inappropriate American calibers such as the .45-70 and others. In India, always use calibers that have stood the test of time. The .375 H&H, .458 Win.
Mag., .458 Lott, .465 H&H, .470 NE, .505 Gibbs, 577 NE and 600NE are among the cartridges suitable for hunting dangerous game. The Indian rhino is larger than the black rhino and only slightly smaller than the white rhino. There is no animal in the New World as large or moody as a male Indian elephant. There are two giant bull elephants on the Indo-Nepalese border, standing 12 feet on the shoulder and weighing 7 tons! A biologist`s laboratory should be the outdoor space; Today, nature is called “the field” and “field visits” are rare. Generally, the purpose of “field visits” is not to increase the observer`s experience, but to collect “data” that can be statistically analyzed and used to create datasets that look impressive on paper, but make no sense in real time. The problem with this method is that the lack of an adequate policy to declare higher vertebrate pests as vermin and their subsequent hunting poses a serious threat to efforts to protect wildlife as a whole. The elephant death incident mentioned above is a good example. It should be clarified that hunting did not mean shooting something on sight; It was a report from rangers to officials on the wildlife population in their respective rhythms. This information was processed and permits were issued for “surplus” animals to maintain a population within the estimated carrying capacity of the forest. If hunting had not been banned, there would have been a cry because the decline in populations would have been noted and there would have been data on the basis of which action could be taken.