skimmer

I meant conservation instead of conversation.

pixelpower

Well finally seems likewe're waking up!!

I'd like to see that list as well! Let us have it!


(thumbs up)

bots

Disgusting...is all I can say.
http://www.kgorisafaris.com/

nyama

bots, good example. Ban hunting in NG43 and rates of Mankwe Lodge will go skyhigh. All the self-drivers and photo tourists who are looking for less expensive accommodation in Botswana will thank you. However, if looking at that area I doubt that people will pay accommodation rates in the US$600-800 range there, and I also doubt that the Botswana Government will decrease the concession fees.

nyama

skimmer, I let it up to you to compile such lists. Maybe you should begin your research in North Luangwa and the rhino re-introduction...

skimmer

Nyama,

Do you fear for your business if publishing those lists?

nyama

skimmer, I thought you already read all of my posts? I already posted it elsewhere - I'm not in the travel trade nor I'm in the hunting business. I'm a photo safari traveller like you. All my interests in safari travel, conservation and Africa are a pure hobby.

Nevertheless, an interesting question - reminds me on the South Africa discussion we had here some days ago...

HariS

That's a gruesome video clip......

jdbotswana

Yes Hari its not nice, same company that owns Mankwe.

nyama

Beside that it's an horrible video, have you ever spend a thought what will happen now after they've banned canned hunting in South Africa? The pressure that this will put on the remaining free-roaming populations in the rest of Africa where you have much less control of what happens? Do you think that all those morbid guys who visit these South African game farms and need a trophy for their ego will stop their bloody business now? I'm really not sure if this canned hunting law in South Africa is a success for or against conservation.

In some way this all reminds me on the people who fight prostitution. They make big victory parties if they succeed in driving it out of the urban centres, but in reality they made the problem even worse and much harder to control. Or our 'war' against drugs where every expert will tell you that we've already lost it.

I don't know how this all will end but one thing I know for sure - as long as human beings will be on this planet there will be people who need prostitutes, drugs or a trophy for their ego (among other things regarded as not so nice) - and you can't stop them in doing so, regardless if you ban such things or not. IMHO controlling is a much better solution to solve/minimize these problems than banning.

divewop

Yeah, let's continue the "controlled" killing of animals so that humans can get their jollies and because humans are such a weak species they can't control themselves. Lame excuses for supposedly the "superior" species on earth.

It would be one thing if canned and/or trophy hunting worked but it hasn't and it doesn't. Poaching, or killing animals in conservation areas or mistakingly killing the "wrong" animal
happens just as much now as it ever has.

There just aren't enough regulations in place to manage hunting properly.

And unfortunately, humans aren't paying the price for the mistakes of poor management, the animals are.

What are we to do, really?

nyama

divewop, just ignoring the cases I told you above and even not trying to discuss or find better alternatives for those cases definitely will not help. Instead you throw all kinds of killing animals in one big melting pot and simply say "hunting doesn't work". The case with the farmer is a typical human-wildlife-conflict gone mad, the same category where I put all those garden owners who kill moles because these animals destroy their wonderful lawns and who begin to put the poison beyond their fences, just in case. This farmer's motivation has nothing to do with trophy hunting, but you commented it as "trophy hunting being poorly managed is an understatement". Discussions on such a base are useless.

divewop

Nyama-
They are not useless. So what you're saying is, this hasn't happened before?
Hmmm, I think if we were to start looking, we'd find out this is not an isolated incident.

And I'm not the one stating that all-in-all trophy hunting is poorly managed. I'm quoting the "professionals" who believe that. As I recall, a professional who you also quoted. And there has been more than one professional who believes hunting is not managed properly.

And there still hasn't been any answers to my original post.

I don't understand why you get so defensive and condescending with those of us who don't see things your way.

We believe it's wrong, you believe it's right. Nothing you can do or say will convince us otherwise and likewise to the reverse.

Every time hunting is brought up, the pro-hunting posters and the anti-hunting posters go 'round and 'round about it.

Suffice it to say, once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree as in all of the other hunting discussions and threads on this forum.

BTW...I would also like to see the list you were referring to earlier.

nyama

"So what you're saying is, this hasn't happened before? Hmmm, I think if we were to start looking, we'd find out this is not an isolated incident."

First, I didn't say this. Second, trophy hunting and human-wildlife-conflicts are regarded as complete different issues by conservationists and wildlife authorities, that was my point.

"And I'm not the one stating that all-in-all trophy hunting is poorly managed. I'm quoting the 'professionals' who believe that. As I recall, a professional who you also quoted. And there has been more than one professional who believes hunting is not managed properly."

The quoted professional also said that he regards hunting as an important conservation tool. You can conclude two things from this: first, hunting can never be managed properly, thus it can't be no/any conservation tool (your opinion), or second, if hunting is managed well it can be an important conservation tool (I prefer this one).

"And there still hasn't been any answers to my original post."

If you mean the one from this thread then this is not true.

Your original post: "So what you're saying is that even if it is poorly managed and the benefits aren't being seen, it's a good thing."

First, I didn't say that. Second, I gave you examples (Kafue, Niassa, Zim). Third, if there are no benefits for conservation I wouldn't support it, or to make it clear, if I don't see any benefits in an individual hunting operation I don't support it.

"We believe it's wrong, you believe it's right."

That's not quite true. I told you in one of my posts that I support banning of hunting in areas where other instruments for protecting the environment are available and successful.

"I don't understand why you get so defensive and condescending with those of us who don't see things your way."

Because I sometimes have the impression that you don't carefully read what I'm writing. (See above.)

I will not publish lists here because I simply don't like such lists. They are horrible instruments if for some reason the wrong individual or organization is listed. Lessons from the history of my own country and also the lessons from your McCarthy era are telling me this. However, if you have a question regarding a special camp or operator I will answer you truthfully.

Now, I'm still waiting for some constructive alternative suggestions on how to deal with the Kafue, Niassa, Zim cases.

divewop

Nyama,
Still no reason for you to take a condescending tone. Please give it a rest. I was trying to end this discussion peacefully, but it seems like you don't want it that way.

And apparently, you did not read my original post correctly. I was looking for rationalizations and justifications for hunting.

Yet here's another reason for anti-hunting from a poster's trip from this forum.


"Hunting of leopards is allowed in parts of South Africa and near Phinda.

Hunters were taking out the large dominent males in the area as trophies and what the project found was interesting. The females STOPPED breeding. Every time the dominant males was killed, a newcomer came in control of the territory, killed the young cubs to sire new ones. I guess this happened to a point where the females did not breed at all until they could be sure there would not be a new dominant male coming into play often.

Because of this study, the South African government changed their hunting policy and the female leopards of Phinda are now breeding again."


Hmmmm...another example of well-managed hunting? I think not.

I've never claimed to be the authority on anything and if I had the answers, I'd surely pass them along. Seems like everyone in these situations are looking for answers.

I shall defer to you, since you're such the authority on the above mentioned cases, so why don't you give us the constructive suggestions instead of bashing me over the head on these issues.

The mention of this list. Why bring it up if it's not a valid or proven list or one that can add to the discussion?

IMHO, seems like you aren't adding much convincing to the discussion, just trying to point out what you feel us wrong with my points.

Bottom line is, you can keep talking until you're blue in the face. You can keep being condescending until you're blue in the face. I'll never give up the battle to wipe canned/trophy hunting off the face of the earth.

If you've got the answers, please share them. If not, stop putting me down to get your points across. I would appreciate it.
Thanks!

HariS

In the industry where the $$$ amounts are huge...i don't know if they stick to the rules whenever they conduct these hunts? I am sure the hunters are pretty demanding and at times may need to bend the rules? ok, maybe they don't need the spas or Chic designed lodges, but...i bet they demand a certain trophy? For example, in the safaritalk website, there was a newsclip that mentioned a radio-collared leopard (for research purposes) was taken down by hunters-they are supposedly not permitted to be touched?

Also, i also have a gut feeling that the hunting industry is going to be well supported by people from influential/political places that visit Africa to conduct these hunts? For instance, there were one or two famous political names thrown into the mix in the other thread.....i'm sure these people will throw their weight around?

nyama

Hari, I think the rules work quite well in South Africa, Botswana and Namibia. I also have a good feeling for Tanzania. Zambia might be a problem case, and of course Zimbabwe during these times. I don't know much about hunting in Mozambique. Bending the rules isn't such easy, because the hunters also want to bring their trophy home, thus a lot of people are involved, which brings the operators into risk to loose their concession and business if they don't obey the policies.

Btw, divewop just gave a good example how controlled hunting works. Not well-managed hunting brought a whole population in danger, research found the reason, government changed the policy, and voila - the leopards are breeding again. Apparently it worked.

Hunting is big business, it's an economic factor, you can't just stop it without creating alternatives. And it creates money for conservation, simply because it's (beside park fees from photo tourism) the income source of the national wildlife authorities.

pixelpower

You know... we've got bans on ivory trade, so elephant populations are on the rise again. Same with rhino; they were saved from extinction. So forbidding something, plus prosecution DOES WORK. But why do local governmnents not do it?

My point of view is; forbid every bullet near wildlife. It's as simple as that. Can this be done?

It's all about government actually. All about legislation.

Some things are as they are, and will never change. For instance: the government sees the wild areas as a source of direct revenue (concessions for hunting or tourism), or a an indirect revenue (their citizens get access and produce something on it).

This "seeing wildlife as $$$" is, to me, the very core of the problem. So a solution must be made THERE. Nowhere else.

I'll give you some trails of thought first, and will take Botswana as an example, as it is so popular on this board:

1) The cattle industry is very important to the government in Botswana; it means employment, and a source of revenue. However, the whole thing is a bubble of air, as it is heavily subsidised by the west. If not for our money, the bubble would burst. But in the meantime; herds are getting bigger, more waterholes are being drilled (not good for mother nature either; there's bound to be a water deficit somewhere), and more and more space is needed for cattle. So: people and livestock flock to where there's still space left: the Okavango Delta. Right now, fences prohibit them from going further, but for how long? People WILL revolt eventually.

Solution? Stop paying them for their meat?

2) It is apparently agreed amongst most here that wildlife can only persist if the communities around it directly benefit from whatever revenue is made from it. That may be true to some extent, but consider this; villages around national parks get bigger fast. Because there's work there. And the standard of living is higher (because thetourists/hunters require that). Etc...

Solution? Stop the population increase by putting quota on residents in certain areas?

3) Hunters in Africa bring in a lot of money, right? Well... if it's all managed well, the government should indeed benefit. But alas, which African government does at this point? Hunting is not easy to control, and there's bribing everywhere, etc... but do those governments have an alternative?

Solution? Banning hunting, and enforcing that ban?

This is is an extra cost. So they rather stick to the little revenue that gets to them now.

I could go on... but I hope by now you know what I'm getting at:

A) government will need to make ANTI-PEOPLE type of rules: citizen quota, birth control, etc... not easy to do, as governments "are created for the people"! So most of them don't do it, as iposing something "against the people" means comitting political suicide.

B) governments will need to find a source of money to ban hunting, maintain their green areas, etc.

Can someone add A to B? For me, it's simple: their fate is not in their own hands, it's in OUR hands. WE are responsible. WE are the rich that pay a lot of money to hunt. WE have the tourists with money. WE have the governments with money (subsidizing programs).

Can everyone not see this?

So what are we to do? First of all, instead of subsidizing people (or their industries), we should subsidize wildlife (it's a cost anyway for the west, so better choose something worth wile). Secondly, subsidize eco-friendly tourism. Thirdly, favour governments that ban hunting plus impose serious fines and jail sentences on our western citizens who still hunt illegaly and/or are caught importing the game they shot. And lastly and perhaps most importantly; favour governments that work hard to stop the popuation increase.

And how do we accomplish this? Well, we need organisations telling our government what to do. THAT is why I am so pissed at WWF right now. They should know what NOT do support. THAT is why I started this thread.

But please stop this pro- vs anti hunting bickering. It's besides the point. Hunting is NOT pro-wildlife anyway. The hunting industry is just exploiting the current situation.

HariS

Pixelpower,

You know the prominent tourist shops in SA (Even in the JNB airport), where they sell animal skins and the like...where do they get them from? and who buys these? and why?

And to your point RE organizations telling their Governments what to do...if our Governments really did listen to their people/organizations, then the world won't be in the position it is in today......how do you get them to listen? The interview did mention the nationalities of hunters....how do you stop them from travelling to other countries for hunting purposes? it isnt local hunters that are hunting at these places- SA or elsewhere!

pixelpower

Hari,

An answer to your first question: indeed, again WE (the west) are the problem; we create the market for those skins. So we must be the solution too; an import ban on stuff like that, serious fines for someone who posesses skins, etc... I'm talking about legislation in our contries, not in theirs.

As for your other remarks; those organisations should advise OUR governments, not theirs. The problem is OURS. Those over there will not listen indeed; they've got their backs to the walls. They need the money.

Problem is a) none of the organisations do that and b) they even send out the wrong signals (like WWF supporting hunting).