A Vested Interest: Living Commodities

Remember this: Thought and reason see through to the human being.

In the story of early human development, humans lost most of their hair. When early humans lost their hair, they wore the fur and skins of animals to protect them from the elements of Nature.

We learned the importance of animals as mutual beings, living in and outside of our daily lives. We realized the animals ability to sustain us.

Over time, animals became important. Humans elevate animals above themselves, and treat animals as family members. This is not always true when you consider animal abuses. Somewhere in time, some have learned to treat animals as inanimate objects to be used and discarded, regardless of care. People are treated just as poorly when you look at human trafficking. Animals and people can be considered valueless. It doesn't take much work to find photographs and information that illustrate animals and humans are in equally disturbing conditions.

One animal in particular, humanity has treated callously. It is the human animal.

Wildlife and domestic animals have value as resources. More so, they are living commodities.

What happens when resources and living commodities outweigh the value of a non-commodity human being?

I removed my mental post-it note of African hunting and wildlife. What did I have left over in this story of Africa?

African wildlife and trophy hunting is a people problem.

There was a quote from Safari Club International, “The surest way to persuade an indigenous population to preserve animals is by giving those animals financial value. And the surest way to give them value is to allow them to be hunted, with the locals getting the proceeds.”

I took a pause. Translated this means, "let me get my foot in the door."

Proceeds. 

Is this delineated by locals getting meat and someone else getting money? Exactly what does that monetary audit entail, when you want to see an itemized list of where every dollar goes, for the sake of argument. Someone should be able to provide ledgered proof as to expenditures and profits.

It is the same with wildlife conservation, show an itemized audit of services and expenditures, programs, who paid in and out, how money was used, and where the benefit was generated in expected outcomes?

Merely saying hunters put money into a wildlife conservation is not going to be enough to illustrate a point in an argument for or against hunting in general. It is saying, “Take my word for it. Trust me, I am a hunter.”

We now live in a world of suspicions, act accordingly.

I thought about ownership.

People tend to need the idea of ownership of something in order to value the item to protect it. Otherwise, anyone can arrive and tell them what to do with what they have, in the way of resources. If you don't have ownership, you have no say.

Here this concept is illustrated by tribes of North America. Water quality is one of the main concerns to living a healthy, happy life. this is true for living thing. Something that complicatedly simple, gives the world's population a vested interest. Water runs through land. Anything done in water or on land affects the system. Ownership and respect of something not truly owned, gives them the courage to protect and ensure the quality and uses of resources. That is for everyone. Yet, governments give them grief when they revolt. Why is it hard to understand when a human person wants water quality to be important and something to protect?

Back to Africa.

One could say there should be no ownership, it is for all. When a foreign entity comes in with an agenda, their whole business is outlined by ownership based on legalities in one way or another. Ownership has to be defined so existing people will not get taken advantage of by foreigner looking to intervene on their behalf for resources, revenue, and control.

With indigenous peoples, ignorance of foreign governance, the ideology of colonialism, and having those conditions forced off on primitive peoples have caused dreadful damage that lasts over lifetimes. This damage is to the people, wildlife, and landscapes.

Some condition or weak spot had to exist previous for Safari Club International to go in to a location, then assert a need for some kind of conservation for reasons known or unknown. Conservation through trophy hunting is what Safari Club International wanted. In order for Safari Club International to function, there has to be revenue in some form being collected off these ventures. Where is that money going?

I have never been a member of the Safari Club International. I thought about it for a hot minute, but decided against it.

In my critique of this, Why was there no dialogue stating the African people were valued as stewards of the animals. Through the value of the African people, which would have given them a vested interest outside of foreign persuasion, to tend their wildlife with better care and consideration. Where did the African human's value go?

Why was it not articulated to the International stage that African people are a commodity unto themselves that can stand alone to make revenue towards prosperity? Why do those African governments not propagate that idea and drive their industry based around the importance and value of its people?

What one sees on the internet is considerably different from the actual daily life and treatment of people.

The problem with this statement is the animal was asserted value while the human population got the scraps. They were told to value the animal, but not themselves?

The animal and the human has to compete for value on the African landscape. The animal and the human compete for value on social media. The African is being told, “We value that animal. You should to, but not you.”

Could you imagine that concept comes creeping to your head while you stand in abject poverty and corruption?

This was illustrated when Ebola broke out in certain parts of Africa. There was an angry outcry from Africans. They believed the world didn't care if they died. It could have been some conspiracy to kill off poor Africans living in slums or other places. Treatment or lack of treatment brought about their belief on how the outside world perceives them; valueless, worthy of death, and something to be eradicated.

I can't imagine anyone would want to feel this way.

Somewhere in there, a portion of Africans are not seeing proceeds but realize their lives are not valued as much as an animal sold for trophy hunting, even if it looks like the money is going to an outfitter or local government.

If corrupt government leaders mistreat their constituents in such a way ,to render the population into disparity instead of prosperity, one can understand when wildlife is sold off at the highest dollar, the general public becomes resentful. They soon believe the local wildlife is the instigator in their suffering, instead of the humans. Once thought, this is an erroneous idea. It is a possible scenario.

The point illustrated here is: If a white rhino has a financial hunt value of $350,00, is there one African person, that we can find, who equals or surpasses that amount of money? How many African people would it take to value that one rhinoceros?

This is the root of all that evil.

The intention is to value something above yourself. When outside elements are re-enforcing the idea the animal has more value than the human, while the human is living in squalor, where does this lead?

There will possibly be poaching to kill off the animal in the hopes the competition for support and finances will be divert to the human. The human will see more of a desire to partake of the animals value through poaching to satisfy personal needs. There could be detachment from the animal's value because the evident poor treatment of the human in comparison to the animal.

There was also the argument of poachers and landowners killing off the remaining wildlife, because there was no vested interest for them in wildlife existence on their landscapes.

If vested interest is a motive for action towards conservation, then it is a weak one. The motive is covering up the real reality of why, conservation is being utilized; revenue.

In another reality, American dollars could possibly be funneled into programs locally to help out veterans and poverty stricken people have a better life. There is no trade-off for someone to do that. Trophy hunting was a trade-off for Africa.

There are people, right here in America, that are just as deserving of help as the people in Africa. They may not look like your generic poor person, but do you have to look the part to make someone extend a hand?

Is supporting foreign places more of a fashionable trend? Is it because those extending help see them as less inclined to help themselves or subjugated, whereas people believe Americans all have the life of Riley? Do we not want to face the fact that our National Home is in serious trouble?

Are people doing these charitable acts for the feeling, or being authentically honest in helping another human being?

Priorities need to be reassessed, and make the statement clear. All life matters, and stop making it a superficial skin issue. 

If it is asserted human life has less value than an animal based on recreation, sheltered under the umbrella of Wildlife Conservation, there is going to be a problem.

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore