Is regulated hunting the moral choice?

In the last hundred years the human population of Africa has grown ten-fold. Farmland and cities have encroached on the wildernesses which were home to these animals. This pressure is set to increase as Africa's humanity continues to surge. Even more so as conservation success means some species are booming.

African governments have thought long and hard about how to ensure their majestic animals survive into next century by creating win-wins for people and animals.

And this is why they use private hunting to pay for vast nature reserves along with armed guards for the animals. The guards, often trained by former SAS types, keep violent poaching gangs at bay. So hunting provides not just food and safety but jobs including work for guides and hotel workers in remote areas far from where photo tourists will venture.

Illegal hunting is being kept in check because local communities are benefiting from the hunting. That is crucial. For if we dislike hunters with telescopic rifles taking out buffalo, then we should be utterly appalled with the indiscriminate ways of poachers. They kill huge numbers of animals with unbelievable cruelty as they hack off body parts for the Chinese medicine market. Can you imagine the agony of a lion caught in an illegal snare before being slaughtered?

Much of this horrific poaching is driven by money. But human hunger is another issue. For in Africa big animals are a critical source of protein. A single elephant—of which parts of Africa have far too many—can provide 4,000 meals.

So which is the bigger problem? Well-regulated hunting that feeds people and only takes out the elderly or most dangerous animals? Or the free-for-all that would result from a ban on private hunting—with criminal gangs causing havoc?