The discussion on the relationship between hunting and conservation as China issues new hunting licenses to foreigners.  The show, broadcast live, will start at 10:00 am Friday, August 18th, Beijing time and lasts until 11:00 am.Guests:

 In the Studio

 Zhang Yingyi, China Program Manager for Fauna and Flora International.

And

Libo, the Executive Director of "Friends of Nature",

On the Phone

Richard B. Harris, from the Wildlife Biology Program at the University of Montana--Missoula

And

Robert Jenkins, a Species Management Specialists and Managing Director of Creative Conservation Solutions

 Today on Beyond Beijing

PART 1 (10:05-10:20)- The Legality of Hunting and The Conservation Situation in Western China 

(Opening positions from each participant on hunting) Without getting into the details of the hunting in western china, its useful for our audience to understand the perspectives we have on the show, overall is hunting net positive for wildlife and conservation or is it a net negative?

What is the current state of conservation efforts in western china?  Have animal populations been declining or increasing?  

How much money has been spent to conserve wildlife in the region? How has the money been spent?  Is china setting aside land as animal reserves or national parks?  Is it the local government involved, the national government, or some combination of the two?

China's wildlife protection law prohibits the hunting of rare animals protected under law, outside of special purposes that are limited to research or education. Doesn't this practice of issuing permits go against the law? Or are there any other explanations? 

 If foreigners are allowed to hunt wild animals this time around, it would be for the first time since the country introduced a ban and halted plans to auction hunting licenses for foreigners in 2006. Why after almost 2 decades of licensed hunting in western china was it suspended in 2006? And after a ban of five years, why did Chinese authority decide to give the greenlight now? What's the rational? 

The two types of animals, blue sheep and Tibetan gazelle, are officially classified as Class 2 national wildlife protection species. What does a class 2 protection species mean? How rare are those animals? Are class 2 protection species permitted to be hunted in other countries?   

Is it only western hunters that are interested in hunting in this region?  The focus seems to be on licenses given to foreigners but do the Chinese hunt in this area?

How active are poachers in this region?  How are they being controlled?  Are the poachers local or international? 

Some critics say the approval is about money, because for every license of hunting, there's a price tag depending on the type and number of animals hunted. Is that the case? The plan to auction hunting licenses for foreigners was shelved following fierce public criticism in 2006. What was the criticism about? 

Critics say  the approval of hunting permits should have included the opinions of conservation experts.  so who are those people from Expert Committee of Wild Animal Hunting, which gave the passes before a final liscense? Isn't this their job to take into consideration conservation?  

PART 2 (10:20-10:40)- The Relationship Between Hunting and Conservation

 The reaction to the new hunting licenses has been intense, is it mostly about accusations that the law was circumvented or is China’s population simply against hunting?

With the ban since 2006 have animal populations increased?  Has the ban worked to improve conservation efforts?  Prior to 2006 the industry brought in a reported 35 Million US dollars in funding, some of that went to travel companies, some to local land owners and a lot to the government, is this a significant loss of income for the local economy? 

Wildlife populations around the world are going down because of non-hunting factors from climate change to urban and agricultural sprawl to poachers, should we blame hunters for the loss of animals?  Or should we prevent hunters from hunting anymore of the already decreasing animals because of the overall decline?

Overall hunters claim they are the biggest proponents of conservation because they have a vested interest in having animals to shoot left still alive while many conservationist paint hunters as the ultimate villain, a tangible “bad guy” in a swirling world of factors hurting conservation.  Which are hunters-hero or villain?  

Considering the history of hunters, hunting animals in Africa to extinction or near extinction, almost killing off the American Buffalo, etc etc are modern hunters different than their historical sport hunters who have such a bad track record?

How can hunting truly improve conservation efforts? Is it simply a transfer of money for hunting that provides a revenue stream?  Are there other benefits? 

Africa has widely experimented with hunting as a path to better conservation, how successful has it been? What have been the positive lessons learned?  And what problems have arisen?

Critics of hunting as a conservation tool point to the decreasing population of lions across Africa even with hunters working under regulated conditions, is this the fault of the hunters or are Lions simply being crowded out of the world?  If Lions or others are going to be crowded out inevitably should we shut down hunting to protect as many as possible? 

How important is the revenue streams from hunters in protecting wildlife?  How can land and reserves be protected without income from hunters?  Is the only option basically government ownership and protection or hunters?  Are there other sustainable ways to make reserves practical?

A Chinese official says as hunters would usually go after gazelles with bigger horns - usually elderly animals - this would not have a disastrous effect on the overall population.  If the number is limited and only the elderly animals are targeted, what's the concern?    

An official with the international hunting ground in Qinghai said that they would send supervisors to monitor the foreign hunters.  He said a shot could be fired only after the target was confirmed by both the hunter and the supervisor. If that's the case, where's the fun of game hunting? Do people really follow that strict rule in actually hunting? What happens if they exceed their hunting quota, accidentally shoot some other animal, or if they try to steal an untagged animal?

Proponents of hunting say they only take 2-5% of the males in a population of animals thus protecting the development of the species are these numbers accurate?  Can they be kept accurate? 

Hua Ning, China program director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, objected to hunting licenses saying: "Hunting is cruel and most profits go into the pockets of the private owners of the hunting grounds instead of the local community and people.” Do you agree with him?  If money goes into the pockets of private owners isn’t that ok?  Arent private owners the people we should be worried about selling their land for agriculture or worse urban development if they can’t get revenue from hunters using their land? 

Critics like Hua Ning seem to want hunters to pay for the development of rural areas but is that really fair?  If those critics then block hunters because the money doesn’t go faar enough in supporting development in rural areas what is the alternative?  And isn’t conservation in some essence about holding back development?  Or at least protecting areas from development?  

Even detractors in Africa about sport hunting as a conservation tool say that while it is not a good plan, that going back to allowing people to make choices freely or incentivizing them to go back to cattle herding or agriculture by removing the current financial incentive of hunting would be even more devastating, do you agree? 

As china rapidly grows and has trouble regulating its land to the point that even in urban areas hundreds of illegal golf courses have sprung up against government rulings, should China be taking any financial incentive to protect and conserve land? 

PART 3 (10:40-10:58)-

If hunting were to truly work to conserve western China what regulations or processes would need to be put in place?  What regulations would be acceptable to conservationist and pro-hunters? 

In your paper Mr. Harris, Incentives toward conservation of argali Ovis ammon: a case study of trophy hunting in western China, one of your conclusions was that fees should be handed to local officials rather then national offices because then the money would stay in the local community, why would this be a major improvement in the system?  Has money from hunting regularly been siphoned off to non-conservation projects or even out of the region it was earned? 

Handing money to local officials sounds simple enough but it could also open the door to local corruption, is this a realistic fear in the entire “hunting for conservation” argument? 

If hunting were continued to be banned in China would this feed the demand for illegal hunting and poachers?  How damaging would a spike in illegal hunting be vs. regulated hunting?

Before the ban in 2006, the fees for shooting animals in china were: $7,900 to hunt a blue sheep and $1,500 for a Tibetan gazelle, are these high enough to promote sustainable hunting? 

In a nation that has trouble regulating its food sources, has local governments that have amassed huge debt burdens at times against the directives of national governments and is continually fighting a battle of regulation throughout the country can they effectively regulate hunting?

  ---  the end  --

Brandon B. Blackburn-Dwyer

Host, "Today on Beyond Beijing"

BrandonBD@Gmail.com

Brandon@cri.com.cn