首先是原文链接：http://bowhunting.net/2014/06/hunting-bans-bad-for-wildlife/
On the surface, it would seem that if you stop hunting, animal numbers will go up. For example, what if we stopped hunting for white-tailed deer. For sure, numbers would increase for a while. Same for other big game species. But rabbit numbers and most small game animals, would see no change simply because hunting doesn’t impact their numbers. The average life expectancy for a cottontail is less than a year, with or without hunting. And there has been lots of research showing that hunting doesn’t impact many hunted species at all. Areas with dove hunting have same dove numbers as areas without hunting. Same for many other bird and mammal species.
从表面上看，似乎有这么个逻辑——如果禁止狩猎，动物数量就能得以恢复。譬如说，如果我们停止狩猎白尾鹿，自然，鹿的数量将增加一段时间，其他大型猎物一样都有这个规律。但兔子以及多数小狩猎物种，数量将没什么变化，原因很简单，证据表明狩猎不会影响它们的数量。如棉尾兔，它们的平均预期的寿命不足一年，有或没有狩猎都不会改变这一点。出现了大量的研究显示，狩猎不会影响到众多被猎物种。如狩猎与非狩猎区的鸽子数量并无区别，正如其他许多鸟类和哺乳类动物的数量表现一样。
But let’s get back to our deer example. With high deer numbers would come devastated habitat, unhealthy deer and a disaster waiting for the next bad winter. A major winter would put feet of snow on what little food remained and a massive deer die off would occur. For example, if we had cancelled deer seasons for North Dakota ten years ago and no EHD hit the herds, the past couple of winters would have devastated deer herds there. And this scenario is not fiction. There have been such situations where no deer hunting, followed by a bad winter, literally wiped out the deer in that area. Clearly, from a biological stand point, a hunting ban just doesn’t work.
但是，让我们回到鹿的例子。如此高的鹿总量会蹂躏栖息地，下一个天气不好的冬天对那些不健康的鹿而言就是一场灾难。一个严酷的冬季将有数英尺的降雪，这对于一个庞大的鹿群和一点点的维持生存的食物，明显大规模的死亡将会发生。例如，十年前我们在北达科他取消了猎鹿季，也并没有没有EHD感染鹿群，但历经两个冬天鹿群惨遭损失。这个场景不是小说。切实有过这样的情况，无人猎鹿，只是寒冬，和鹿群的数量本身，就消灭了这个地区的鹿。显然，从生态学的立场来看，狩猎禁令是行不通的。
But there are other considerations in my deer hunting ban example. The economics of hunting in America are pretty straight forward. Hunting license money is used for wildlife management. Hunting equipment federal excise taxes (11%) go to state wildlife agencies and must be used, along with license money, for wildlife management. So, stop deer hunting and you literally cripple your state wildlife agency and the law enforcement arm of that agency. Frankly, in America, such a large-scale ban on hunting would be a major disaster for all wildlife. Why? No money to manage wildlife. The antis can sugar coat that any way they want (and they do), but the end result is still the same. The billions hunters create do the job.
但也有其他方面的考虑，以鹿狩猎禁令为例。在美国，狩猎的经济性非常直截了当。狩猎执照的钱被用于野生动物管理，狩猎装备的联邦消费税（11％）将分给国家野生动物机构，而且专款专用，正是靠着牌照的钱，野生动物管理部门才得以运转。因此，停止猎鹿直接从预算上削弱了国家野生动物机构和该机构的执法部门。坦率地说，在美国，这样的大规模的禁止狩猎将是所有野生动物的一大灾难。原因很简单，没有钱去保育它们。狩猎的反对者尽力按他们希望的那样粉饰数据（他们也确实这样做了），但最终的结果还是一样没有办法。只因狩猎是创造数十亿美元的活动。
That’s America (and Canada). But they have a different hunting system in Africa and obviously different political situations as well. And in Africa we have some problems. They’ve had total country bans of hunting. In fact, Botswana just opted to eliminate most hunting and the future of wildlife there is really up in the air. Only time will tell, but there are some African examples that do make one wonder what the Botswana government is thinking about when they abolished hunting.
莫要以为这只适用美国（以及加拿大）。有不同的狩猎规则与明显不同的政治情况的非洲也是如此。在非洲相关方面存在许多问题：他们国家有的下了狩猎的总禁令。但事实上，博茨瓦纳国家公园禁猎之后大多数野生动物的命运将更加悬乎。只有时间会告诉我们，非洲的举措譬如博茨瓦纳政府的禁猎究竟有没有经过深思熟虑。
Recently our Fish and Wildlife Service made a terrible decision to stop the import of elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe and Tanzania. Once announced, conservationists in America and Africa spoke out; presenting the reasons such a ban will hurt elephant populations. And this discussion isn’t a question of whether this ban will hurt elephant populations. All experts know that it will. No, this ban creates the situation of when and how badly elephants will suffer.
最近，我们鱼类和野生动物事务部做了一个可怕的决定，停止在津巴布韦和坦桑尼亚的大象safari战利品狩猎。不提出禁令会伤害大象种群？一旦美洲和非洲保育部门宣布了这个禁令，该讨论就是禁令是否会伤害大象种群的问题，其实所有的专家都知道会，不，是绝对会造成大象面临严峻的生存形势。
The safari hunter that took this great elephant put thousands of dollars into the local and country economy.
一个safari猎手猎获这头大象给当地和国家公园带来了数千美元
(Even though poaching is taking a growing number of elephants in Zimbabwe, the ONLY way to generate funds is via elephant safaris. And the 500 or so harvested every year there is nothing compared to the thousands being poached. That is why this USFWS ban is so devastating and ill conceived.)
（眼看着偷猎者杀害越来越多的在津巴布韦大象，更能确信，通过大象狩猎之旅才能产生资金保护大象。每年有500乃至数千的大象倒在偷猎者的枪下，这就是这份极不妥当的USFWS禁令事实上的毁灭性。）
Though elephant numbers are declining in Zimbabwe, poaching, not hunting, is the reason and almost all anti-poaching resources are generated by safari hunting. In addition, “operation campfire” takes money from safaris and puts it into local villages. Hunters and those local communities are the number one deterrent of poaching.
因为偷猎而不是狩猎，津巴布韦大象数量在减少，正是因为safari旅行贡献了近乎全部的反偷猎预算。此外，“篝火计划”把钱从狩猎的收益中惠及当地村庄。猎人和那些当地居民因此成为偷猎者的头号威慑。
In Tanzania each hunter pays a daily $150 conservation fee that keeps poaching scouts in the field. For the normal 21 day elephant hunt, that adds up to $3,150 per hunter, money that is used to stop poaching. The sad history is that in Africa hunting bans do not work.
在坦桑尼亚每个猎人支付每天150美元养护费，这钱是给当地向导的。对于正常的21天大象狩猎，这加起来3150美元每人，这钱就是当地阻止偷猎的极大动力。可悲的历史是，在非洲狩猎禁令下，这种良性循环将中断。
Stop hunting and the money to keep the anti-poaching forces stops resulting in an increase of poaching.
停止狩猎就是断了反偷猎警卫队的薪水
Here are some examples. The most famous hunting ban in Africa took place when Kenya abolished it in 1977. After the ban, elephant numbers plummeted from 175,000 to 30,000 Black rhino numbers went from 8,000 to around 500. Some will argue that this decrease did not happen because hunting was stopped. They’ll note that poaching increased. OK, but when you stop hunting in Africa, poaching increases. Every time. It is the safari hunters, professional hunters and their scouts, plus the local villagers who benefit from safari hunting, that help keep the poachers out. When hunters are in the bush, poachers are less active there. It’s plain and simple.
下面是一些例子。在非洲最有名的狩猎禁令发生于肯尼亚，因为其1977年之后的禁令，大象数量从175,000跌至30,000，黑犀牛的数量就从8000跌至500左右。当时的人们只看到禁止狩猎能阻止数量的下降。但是他们很快就会注意到，偷猎显著的增加了。 OK，但是当你在非洲禁止狩猎，偷猎必然增加，这是被每一次事实证明的。当猎人，职业猎人和他们的向导，加上当地村民只要能从狩猎野生动物上受益，这就有助于保持防范偷猎者。当猎人在丛林中，偷猎者在那里自然都不太活跃，这是简单明了的逻辑。
Another hunting ban took place in Tanzania in 1973 when there were 380,000 elephants and 18,000 black rhinos. When hunting was reopened ten years later, elephant numbers were down to 80,000 and black rhino numbers were thought to be less than 100. Robin Hurt, famous conservationist and safari operator in Tanzania notes that after the ban was lifted, elephant numbers grew to 130,000 in 2009.
另一个著名案例是，狩猎禁令在坦桑尼亚始于1973年时尚有380,000大象和18,000黑犀牛。当十年之后狩猎再开的时候，据信大象数量已然下降到80,000、黑犀牛的数量被认为小于100。著名环保专家罗宾·赫特，他与Safari运营商在坦桑尼亚注意到，该禁令被解除后，大象数量重新增长到130,000（统计于2009年）。
Since that time, poaching has increased dramatically and more funds (more than is provided via safari hunting) are needed to bring poaching down. The recent ban will do nothing to increase elephant numbers since safari hunting isn’t the problem. Poaching is.
自那时以来，偷猎急剧增加于是更需要资金反偷猎（超额预算唯有通过狩猎野生动物提供）把偷猎的数量降下来。一纸禁令将无助于增加的大象数量，必须明确，要反对的不是狩猎而是偷猎。
Another ban took place in the Democratic Republic of Congo (you will recognize the former name of that country as Zaire) in 1984. There they have the forest elephant and although estimates are almost impossible to obtain due to the dense forest jungle, since the ban forest elephants are rare and white rhinos are gone.
另一禁令发生在刚果民主共和国（这个国家的前称扎伊尔）于1984年。在那里，曾经他们有珍惜的森林象，虽然由于森林茂密的丛林估计是几乎不可能猎获的，但是之后因为该禁令，森林大象彻底绝灭的而且曾经常见的白犀牛都不见了。
Stop hunting. We’ve heard it and we’ll continue to hear it. Stop hunting sounds simple, but it is a complicated, negative policy for wildlife.
禁止打猎，我们曾经听到这种呼声，也将继续听到伪善者继续发出这种声音，这听起来很简单，但它对于野生动物，只是的一个后果复杂，行为消极的政策。