Final answer:
Controlling the domestic supply of game meat is complex and not straightforwardly feasible according to Wilkie and colleagues. The issues include potential market oligopolies, the challenge of creating effective substitutes, and the socioeconomic importance of wildlife to rural communities. Comprehensive strategies should include a mix of no-take areas, tailored enforcement, and economic incentives to reduce hunting and support population recovery.
Step-by-step explanation:
Wilkie and other researchers are apprehensive about the idea that controlling the domestic supply of game meat is straightforwardly feasible. The concerns raised by Wilkie et al. suggest that market strategies like wildlife farming intended to compete with wild-caught vertebrates could lead to scenarios such as oligopolies wherein few suppliers control prices by restricting market supply, thus failing to reduce hunting pressure on wild populations. Additionally, introducing farmed substitutes for wild products might not only fail to decrease demand for wild products but potentially increase demand if consumers do not perceive the substitutes as superior. The complexity of wildlife markets, uncertainties in wildlife exploitation, and the reliance on wildlife for income and protein by many rural dwellers further complicate the issue.
Rather than solely limiting supply, comprehensive strategies for conservation should also include a mixture of no-take areas with well-designed enforcement measures tailored to various contexts like national parks and community-based management. The economic theory of contracts could be used to design incentives that deter hunting in these areas. Bioeconomic modeling suggests that other measures, such as imposing heavy fines on the commercial sale of wild meat, could effectively reduce hunting and aid wildlife population recovery, even without forest patrols. However, these approaches need to be context-specific and manage the interaction between demand and supply effectively.