Blessings of Canned Hunting: Hunting Ranches Can Preserve Wildlife!

Woooohooooooo!

Private game ranches, hunting preserves, high fence game ranches that practice “canned hunting” are to fervent environmentalists what witches, warlocks, incubi and succubi, black cats, demons and their assorted cohorts were to the inquisition in the late Middle Ages.

In their quasi-religious fervor to protect animals from exploitation by scrupulous humans who engage in unfettered commercialism on the backs of defenseless wildlife, the most radical self-appointed protectors of animals value wildlife as high as human life.

Hunters are the favorite target of those groups; particularly hunters who hunt 'tame, pen-raised game' on high fence ranches designed to trap the animals inside to face merciless extermination. Hunters patronizing these ranches are ruthless killers who slaughter Bambi for sadistic fun. On the other hand, ranch owners are accused of torturing their animals for profit and profit alone.

Not so fast, argues Robert J. Smith in an article published in the Cato Journal (Vol.1, No. 2). In his well-reasoned, insightful and well documented article Resolving the Tragedy Of The Commons By Creating Private Property Rights In Wildlife the author explores the influence of human actions, weapons technology, societal. commercial and legal factors on the disappearance of animal species from prehistoric times to the present.

Smith points out the many, often diverging interests of the conglomerate of environmentalist groups and the one glue that binds them all together: Wildlife conservation and preservation.

“Even here there is a wide and growing chasm among organizations. The more "conservative" groups are interested in wildlife management, such as increasing the numbers of commonly hunted species of fish and game. The "middle-of-the-roaders" are interested in developing sustained-yield management programs for species where it is clear that wise management and international cooperation can achieve better results than ending all harvesting. The "liberals" push for an end to the exploitation of most species and a complete ban on all trade in most threatened wildlife. Finally, there are the animal rights groups, the "radicals," who value the rights of animals to life and liberty at least as highly as human rights.”

Though most hunters can easily identify with the 'conservative' groups, few will most likely follow the 'liberals' and none the 'radicals'.

Just as 'Wildlife conservation and preservation' is the glue that binds diverse environmentalists together, conservation and preservation also can be a powerful bonding agent for all interested in the preservation of healthy wildlife and habitats as nature oriented recreation and, yes, for hunting.

Smith continues:

“ . . .Why are some species disappearing and others thriving? First, we can examine what is disappearing and what is not. Apparently, few environmentalists have taken the time to do this in their haste to catalog extinct and vanishing species . . .”

To answer this question Smith quotes Harold Demsetz:

“. . . Suppose that land is communally owned....If a person seeks to maximize the value of his communal rights, he will tend to overhunt and overwork the land because some of the costs of his doing so are borne by others. The stock of game and the richness of the soil will be diminished too quickly....

If a single person owns the land, he will attempt to maximize its present value by taking into account alternative future time streams of benefits and costs and selecting that one which he believes will maximize the present value of his privately-owned land rights.…It is very difficult to see how the existing communal owners can reach an agreement that takes account of these costs . . .” (Harokl Demsetz, "Toward a Theory of Property Rights," American Economic Review 57 (May 1967): 354-56.)

What does this all have to do with private hunting ranches, you ask?

Considering aspects of wildlife management past and present including the laws governing ownership and commercial use of wildlife, such as private property rights on wildlife versus the Commons, Robert J. Smith makes an often overlooked point:

“It is obvious, however, that not all natural resources or wildlife have disappeared or even been seriously depleted. Environmentalists, journalists, and writers draw our attention to the most shocking cases. But there are many species that are more common today than they were at any previous time. Many plant and animal species exist in large numbers today that were not present in North America before the arrival of the white man. Furthermore, certain animals and plants are thriving under some specific ownership and management conditions but vanishing under other conditions. It is extremely important to examine these cases in order to understand why overexploitation of some resources and wildlife takes place and why other living or renewable resources are managed on a self-sustaining basis.”

Could feral pigs and true boar be among those thriving species?

With that, let's finally get to private hunting ranches that practice 'canned hunting'. According to pig tags returned to the Californian Department of Fish and Game, well over 90 percent of all wild pigs were taken on private land. Public lands, one of the Commons, are almost devoid of game animals.

Robert J. Smith says he knows why:

“Another example of how private ownership can successfully preserve wildlife is found on game ranches, hunting preserves, safari parks, and animal and bird farms. Many of these private ventures, especially the game ranches, were established to generate profits from private hunting. Consequently, there has been a tremendous outcry from environmentalists and conservationists because the animals are raised for profit and some of them are killed. Yet, if emotional responses can be put aside, it seems clear that these game ranches produce many positive results. Many of the animals they stock are rapidly disappearing in their native countries because of pressures resulting from a rapidly expanding human population. Native habitats are disappearing through the encroachment of agriculture, cattle grazing, timber harvesting, and desertification arising from overexploitation of common property water resources, overgrazing of grasslands, and over-utilization of brush, scrub, and trees for firewood and shelter. So serious are these problems and so insoluble under a common property system that there is little hope of saving many species of wildlife in the developing countries. Indeed, some of the more spectacular and most sought-after big-game mammals may now have healthier and more stable populations on some of the game ranches than in their native countries.“

I agree with his conclusions, though personally I do not like trophy hunting. Safari Parks are therefore not exactly my favorites. But Smith's main point is well taken: Private ownership produces better results and more abundant wildlife than common ownership. Because of better care and preservation of flora and fauna on private land, the existence of private hunting ranches is well justified. If you do not believe it, ask anyone who has spent many a weekend braving heat and desolation on public land in vain pursuit of game that moved onto neighboring private land long ago.

Yet this system has also a downside: Wildlife in California is owned by the people, that is the State. Private landowners do not own the game animals. But the owners of private land have an almost absolute right to grant or deny access to their property for any purpose - including hunting the people's wildlife.

The control of access rights to private land does in practice amount to something very, very similar to ownership rights on the animals. If you cannot access a ranch, you also can not hunt the people's game animals on that ranch – unless you pay the access fee. The landowner, on the other hand, can hunt the people's game on his property at any time.

This quasi ownership of game on private land results in fierce competition for access to ranches with healthy habitat and game. Thus, access fees are steadily inching upwards. Eventually there will be a point when only the wealthiest can afford to hunt. At that point environmentalists of all groups and strifes can rejoice in victory. They finally defeated the Bambi killers.

I will explore the relationship between private ownership and common ownership of a resource in a later post in more detail. It is a topic that has interested me for quite some time. You can find a few of my thoughts in my second post about the Big Horn Ranch. (The article will open below this current post.)

The above mentioned most articulate article is located here. It is thorough, well thought out, documented and argued. Maybe a little on the long side. Yet well worth reading for those with a genuine interest in improving and preserving healthy habitats and wildlife. Not just Green Activism.

PJJ