Samuel Bettlach- Source 2

A)    As I progress through my question about hunting as conservation, my research and sources have led me into more deep thinking about the economics of hunting.  In this post I plan to find a source that will explore what hunting can do for conservation economically and also dig into other forms of economic benefits of conservation.

B)    Dickson, Barney, Jon Hutton, and W. M. Adams. Recreational Hunting, Conservation, and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Vol. 4. N.p.: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Web. 4 Sept. 2015.

Summarize:

This article hits what I am looking for in an interesting way.  The financials of hunting are talked about, and are compared to that of other conservation activities.  The socioeconomics of hunting I believe is the most important piece of this text.  Game viewing tourism is a huge money maker for countless communities around the world.  People and families will come from all over the world to view and capture photos of wild animals.  The real question and debate here is the clash of hunting and the killing of these same animals that are getting all the tourist attraction.  Eco-tourism, it is a huge money maker for places where hunting is also a big deal.  The author of this text gives a slight edge to the hunting portion of this debate.  In realistic numbers and logical sense though, would hunting down animals that bring in tourism really make sense?  The book defines a little bit more on what hunting is and where it all came from, and goes into the details of the what they see as the modern hunter.  This book represents all the backgrounds to hunting as an economic background.  There is worry and studies being conducted on the real economic benefit and monetary flow from a hunter to conservation efforts, and even the amount that GDP that is really effected.  Hunting tourism is where the most money in hunting is, and that has to be compared and contrasted with local hunting.  Hunting tourism brings in a far less amount of hunters then does wildlife viewing tourism, but the monetary gains are widely debated and need more critical thinking. 

Think:
This source has a lot to offer, but it is leading me in a direction that I would not have expected.  I go through this source and instead of giving me concrete numbers, which are very hard to find for these kinds of questions, this book does a great job of posing a question in my own mind.  Though this article seems fairly pro hunting, there are points that are mentioned that I feel really need to be dug deeper into and explored in a more critical way.  The amount of tourists that hunt versus those who are there to view the outdoors and the animals that thrive there is a very interesting dilemma.  One of the groups is bringing in money to shoot the animal, and the other group is brining in money to view and appreciate the animal.  My original question for this post is split for me right now.  I believe that hunting really does bring in a large chunk of change to the local and state governments who then assumingly put that money back into conservation.  On the other hand, enjoying nature and the beauty of a wild habitat and animal without shooting it brings in a good amount of money for a community also.  Where I sit, is not knowing everything about the kinds of people that go on nature viewing tourism trips.  Nature viewing tourists don't actively kill any animals, but what kind of good and bad side effects does it have on the conservation actions in these communities.  

Synthesize:

In response to my first article that I have read, there is really a debate and question between both article individually.  The first article that dealt with many issues with the management of animals is also relevant in the monetary fiasco mentioned in the above article.  When I put these two articles together to compare and contrast their ideas, I am led into a very interesting point of thinking of hunting.  Hunting within these articles isn’t seen as a terrible practice.  Both articles don’t just want to say hunting is the best thing, or the worst thing that is out there.  There is more response within the two articles themselves.  In order to bring the two articles together, I have to dig deeper into the goals of the texts I have read.  Game populations and socioeconomics of hunting, how can they be connected?  These two things though seemingly different really mean a lot to one another.  If hunting were to be diminished or done properly, then the populations might be healthier and more prominent.  If these populations are thriving as they should be, then wildlife tourism may increase, thus potentially giving an edge to the non-hunter in this situation.  In both cases I have read about hunters, and neither of the articles gives a yay or nay to all hunting.  What I see as of now is hunting more as a means of conservation in herd management then in an economic stabilizer and booster.  There are populations of animals that could use hunting as a management tool and then populations that could use no hunting at all and more wildlife tourism to expand their population. 

Question and Plan:

After putting two articles together and seeing where their points lead, my direction has thus swayed and situated also.  I have been thinking about hunting in a sense of just many people doing it to harvest an animal.  I want to question the motives and knowledge of those who are hunting.  I think education in the hunting community is where there is potential for hunting and conservation to work in a dang good harmony.  My direction to enter into this conversation is to take a more neutral stance on hunting, and go deeper into the ways all of my subtopics.  Many questions lead to a potential for hunting to be done “right”.  It may be hard to not come out with a definite answer in hunting as a true means of conservation.  After I look at all my information so far and what I might find later, there is hope that education and knowledge will be an important outcome.  My plan is to keep the research going and not look for an article that is either pro or con hunting when it comes to conservation.  I think a good way to research might be more searching of conservation and how I want it to be conveyed to my reader.