Canned Hunting VS Hunting Of Wild Lions
 

I hate to bring this up again, but I thought "canned hunting" of lions had been banned in South Africa. Therefore, I couldn't understand why the breeding of lions continued on the lion farms and why people continue to support these farms by going there to pet the cubs.

Here's an article published on Dec. 21, 2009 on Plan Your Safari's blog.

http://planyoursafari.com/blog/canne...-of-wild-lions

YES - it's disgusting and as long as the minister for tourism and environment is a hunter himself there won't be any change - I fear.

There are too many tourists who LOVE to cuddle a lion cub which becoms soon the cannon fodder for the canned hunting industry.

Sadly - too few tourists think BEFORE they decide on activities.

Here again it comes down to education!

Also tour operators and travel agents don't ask the right questions - mostly!

I request from any camp or TA a confirmation that the venue I decide on is in no way involved in trophy hunting.

Asking uncomfortable questions makes a difference. At least it makes these folks aware that people are watching the industry.

SV ((@))

Forgot something:

I don't think you cannot bring that up too often!

As stated above: A TO/TA who sells/markets/promotes a destination as nature experience as e.g. safaris should know what's going on in these countries.
At least I consider it essential that mine does.

SV ((@))

You shouldn't "hate" to bring it up again, especially not in World Cup year.

"There are too many tourists who LOVE to cuddle a lion cub which becoms soon the cannon fodder for the canned hunting industry."

That's the connection that is too often missed by those who would never support canned hunts.

So, SV does this mean that you only visit Kenya? There's hunting in Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda; not sure about Rwanda. What other safari destinations are hunting free? Please list the places that are hunting free that you would visit?

Wouldn't it be ideal if the photographic safaris brought in more revenue than the hunters? Then there would be a level playing field to start the discussions from. Then there would be bargaining power to stop the hunters. Then the animals would have a chance.

This is my New Years Dream and Wish for all of Africa!!

safarimama
No, I don't only go to Kenya.
But I make sure I don't stay in en environment where hunting is conducted as a kind of "parallel safari universe".

For example: I would NEVER EVER stay at Serian camp as Alex Walker is an active professional hunter taking "his" hunting clients to TAZ etc.
I keep out of Cottar's as I am not sure whether Calvin C. is still leading hunter safaris outside Kenya.

I would NEVER stay at any of the KWANDO camps in Botswana as their concession is also hunting concession but the hunting is executed by "sub-contractor".

I would NEVER again visit Namibia because of the country wide cheetah hunting. Furthermore Namibia (despite I would love to go back for the awesome landscape) has too many "guest farms" where hunting is conducted. My TO could never make certain which one if and which one isn't.

For example: ONGUMA. A wonderful camp. But also hunting. Only "insiders" know about it. Therefore the whole lot of Namibia is "out of area" for us.

It's hard to stick with the ethics. And it's an endless fight. But it grants a much better feeling and experience. I rather sacrifice an experience than my morals.

AND - wouldn't it be hilarious to support more than a dozen animal welfare foundations and on the other hand feed the greed of hunting concession holders?

And I am glad my TO shares our views.

AND - it's a blatant lie told by hunters and their supporters that hunting creates more revenue than photographic safaris! And it doesn't become more plausible/true the more if gets repeated.

You missed my point.

I state that too few TA/TO really care which venues they market(sell/promote. Only money counts. No ethics on that side as well! I expect my TO to know what's going on in concessions. It's part of his education to not send me to hunting venues.

Merry Christmas!

SV ((@))

If I didn't live here, I wouldn't visit the US because they are exterminating the Northern Rockies wolves again and allowing the die-off of polar bears. I won't go anywhere in Europe because they are exterminating the lynx again. Won't go to Iceland because they just shot and killed two polar bears that made it to their shores. Can't go to Japan because of the whale hunting and porpoise slaughter. China for shark fins and tiger hunting. Unfortunately there will always be those who value hunting and consider it part of preservation and those who don't care about the future of this planet. We can b***h about it until we are blue in the face but not much can be done without human population control and that's highly unlikely and probably not a great solution. When some wealthy person who works on Wall St or in Hong Kong has $10,000 - $100,000 to shoot a (fill in the blank), it will always happen. And don't single out Africa - it is a planet wide problem.

You guys are talking about a subject very close to my heart. And I don't think it can be brought up enough on travel forums. I could share my anger and frustration about this issue for hours.

But one thing I cannot understand. How any "real man" could shoot a (tamed/habituated) lion from a couple of paces, have it stuffed and mounted and hold pride of place in his "den" at home, and then brag to his friends and acquaintenances about his bravery, skill and perseverance.

Such self-delusion absolutely flabbergasts me, as does the adulations and respect of his "friends".

What a coward the guy must be!

You stated it perfectly Bushkid0. The sense of shame tht should be felt from participating in a canned hunt anywhere in the world should be overwhelming.

christabir
You are right. But you also didn't get the point!

It's not about singling out countries (except as I did with Namibia and I won't visit China for their cruelty against animals in general - but that's another topic) it's about avoiding those who are involved in that industry. Avoiding that holiday dollars go into such operations!

If every safari enthusiast would make sure he/she does not support these guys that alone would make a big difference.

But that requests research and sacrifice maybe one or the other venue.

Educated travellers won't visit such venues. That's all I am.
I am not allowing myself getting into a kind of phlegm just because I refuse to get information which is widely available.

Nothing more but nothing less.

bushkid0
I couldn't agree more!

Have a look at the poor figures which are holding a rifle with glance on their face sitting behind a buffalo or lion or stretching a leopard (with the help of the outfitter) from head to tail in order to show "how huge" that killed cat was and how togh the guy was killing it from a distance out of a hide or even from a car!

Just make sure you confront those guys when checking in their rifles............It's not without reason those camps hide their real purpose.

Ah by the way: In 2009 there were more than a thousand lions killed by trophy hunters in canned hunting camps. More than ever before!



Merry Christmas!

SV ((@))

SV, I understand what you are saying about the ethics involved in checking out individual camps, lodges etc. within the countries that you choose to visit, but I cannot understand boycotting the country itself (as in your example of Namibia). That would literally mean any country in the world, I am sure, if the research was done. Even the two countries where you & I live - I in Canada (seal hunt in the Arctic and everyday hunters up in Northern BC) and you in Germany (everyday hunters in Bavaria, very common).

Ethics is admiral, yes, I understand that, but please don't punish an entire country - or an entire world - as there is just too much great stuff to see in this world!

Safarimama, getting back to your post - how will I, as just an average ordinary traveller, know which organizations of the 'petting' kind are for hunting or other purposes? You know me well, I do love to hug those animals & I WILL stay away from those that support canned hunting, but how will I know which is which? For example, I know KWS does NOT support hunting so my cheetah hug in Nairobi is OK, and I know Spiers in South Africa is done for money to raise for cheetah research, preservation & awareness so that's OK - but how will I know about the others that I may come across some day, but haven't as of yet?

I do get your point. But it is done all over the world and I cannot fault another country when my own country is doing things that make me sick. It's called hypocrisy.

I'm astonished that you guys don't understand the mentality of the canned hunter. Of course it's disgusting to those of us with a heart, but it's the same group that "bent" the rules to destroy the banking industry (and the worldwide economy). No morals is no morals be it for humans or animals. There is no such thing as shame in their book.

There will be more and more of thses canned hunts and hunting safaris as more and more of the emerging market countries develop middle and upper classes. It's just the reality of humankind.

There is a fine line between a cheetah sanctuary - who we should support - and a cheetah farm - who we should be trying to put out of business. Not every tourist or TA can or will make that distinction (including me the first time I went). Also there is a group out there (not me) that thinks that if you raise it to kill for sport, then what's the problem?

Sorry to be a downer, but it's the reality of the mindset of so many in the world. Those of us who honestly care are in the minority. And living in a country that uses 25% of the resources in the world for 10% of the population, I can't really say much.

Where can one get the real facts here? We can't ask the right questions if we have no idea what to ask, and of whom? I'm sure most photo safari bookers in the U.S. have no idea about hunting, and which camsp/areas are connected with it.

Over the last couple of years I have been stunned to read (moostly on this forum) how much alleged hunting there still is, where it's done, by whom, and what the economic ramifications are.

And, really, Spiers raises money for cheetah "research, etc."? I would love to see that documented. It sounds like it's strictly a tourist trap to me.

Whilst a number of people may find it abhorrent, there needs to be a degree of balance in this debate.

Canned hunting of lions relieves the pressure on the remaining wild populations. Powerful hunting lobbies are kept happy whilst hunting bans can be imposed in and around national parks.

The operators from canned hunting are also the people who have successfully rebred a number of endangered and rare species. A number of these animals are sold at auction each year, which are available for photographic industry to purchase.

It is also important to remember that most of the animlas on private farms are fenced in and have been purchased. Therefore, the land has a limited carrying capacity. Would you take a loss on something you own when you have become overstocked? The revenues from which could then be invested into further development of your farm (expansion etc) How many people on here would want to stay at a small game farm in SA? Well, by hunting, these small farms create an industry that employs and supports a large number of people across communities.

Very little of the money that is spent to go to our eco-camps is spent directly increasing wildlife populations. Instead of paying 30% commissions to agents, perhaps we should all go on self drives and give the remainder of the money to organisations like Sanparks who have an excellent conservation record.

There is far too much talk of 'Greedy hunters' etc. I would like some of you to go on safari to these areas. Would you really pay $1000 a night to walk and be driven around Mopane woodland? I don't think so.

Yet these areas are important wet season dispersal zones, when hunting does not occur (Southern Africa). They need to produce some economic value in order for them to be preserved. Esle they should be given over to farmland for the benefit of the local populace.

The problem with the anti-hunting lobby is that it fails to ever offer a viable alternative (in non-prime safari areas), instead, it launches emotional attacks against individuals in the industry. There is a false dichotomy regarding the future of hunting from a number of posters.

Africa has a right to develop its own economy, and canned hunting is actually a sustainable industry. The only operations I oppose are those mis-selling conservation.

I would ask people in this thread what they would suggest as an alternative?

1) Build luxury lodges in the middle of the Mopane
2) Have zones of land in countries of no economic value in developing countries just to appease those in West who do not like hunting
3) Keep the status quo, which has kept helped protect and keep many wildlife areas balanced.
4) Again, go on mobile safari and give the rest of the money to the countries Gov/local communities in order to keep these dispersal zones preserved?

(I would add, that I am opposed to the hunting of soical predators like Lions based on its impacts on the dynamics in a particular area)

Well said, Christabir!

Hello guys,

Unfortunately I deleted a lot of my previous post before submitting it last night. I happen to be on safari at the mo, and couldn't finish my train of thought before having to attend to guests (an eco-safari, btw, where we shoot with cameras).

This thread has, once again, brought up some very interesting and controversial ideas. I must admit, lbj2, that I've heard the same justifications from "hunters" all my life, and find many of them less than watertight.

Lets look at some examples:

A university professor in Wildlife Management at a prominent institution in SA was once comparing (in an academic paper) the respective revenue from photographic safaris vs. hunting safaris. The figure he used to reflect the total eco-safari revenue in South Africa was minimal in comparison to the "hunting" revenue. It was also the equivalent to the annual turnover of the nearest "5-star Big-5" private game reserve in vicinity of his university (and not even a particulaly large one). The fact that he deliberately falsified the figures to suit his agendas was considered acceptable to the university. He earns more from "culling" excess animals on nearby reserves, than his university salary.

Another prominent SA academic and a world-acclaimed "expert" in Wildlife Management, actively campaigns worldwide in support of culling "excess elephants" in Kruger National Park. He has very strong links to the "elephant meat canning factory" located in Kruger Park. His financial benefits from elephant culling far exceeds his university salary. Elephant culling has been re-introduced in Kruger, thanks largely to this man's successful international campaigns.

I remember working on a game reserve located near Port Elizabeth, owned by a American businessman. One of this man's claims to fame was that he had shot one of almost single species of endangered animal on Earth. He was immensely proud that his "hunting fees" had contributed to the re-breeding and survival of each species! Like say WHAT!

On the same reserve, I remember a hunter lying in bed one morning while the "trackers" went out with hunting dogs to catch a caracal (African lynx). When the cat was succesfully treed, the hunter received a phone call, got out of bed, showered and breakfasted, before going to shoot the animal from a distance of 12 feet. The trophy was then stuffed and mounted, and holds pride of place, amongst many hundreds of other animals, as evidence of his hunting skill. 56 lynx's were shot on the 10,000ha reserve that year.

Another hunter on the same reserve, shot a giraffe from the back of pick-up. His fear was that it would fall on the vehicle as it collapsed.

Fortunately I left the reserve soon after (but not before they had stolen all my eco-safari itineraries and put them on their website without my knowledge).

Many "real men" teach their sons that they can't be "REAL men" until they are "blooded".

I have to ask, ljb2, if this is the type of mentality and lobbyists we are trying to appease. If so, I don't think they are worthy.

Canned lions do NOT relieve the pressure on the wild lions. They simply increase the numbers of canned lions available to these stupid, pathetic, cowardly b*****'s who continue to delude themselves with their bravery and deceive their friends. Maybe the world would be a better place if they were "culled" as the "weakest link".

Very few of the "hunting operations" have contributed significantly to "conserving" - instead they are primarily interested in their own self-enrichment, and hide behind the "rebreeding" concept in order to generate income.

Try the "Lion Park" in Johannesburg (to mention only one example) - apparently they have almost a million visitors a year. And 100+ aggressive, frustrated, caged, psychotic, doomed lions. Yet visitors still flock to this shameful and disgraceful place, dutifully paying their fees to hug a cub.

By the way, the cubs are deliberately orphaned at birth so that their mother comes back into season immediately, turning her into a cub-manufacturing machine to produce the next generation of "huggable cubs". I wonder what people would think if we orphaned children for financial gain (or alternatively started killing our older folk because they were not economically viable). A bit of an outcry, I would imagine.

Not all the opposition to canned hunting (or hunting in general) comes in the form of emotional attacks against individuals. There are some very well-advised, balanced and environmentally aware folk who are opposed to it. A lot of opposition also comes from people who take seriously the ethics of living in harmony with our environment.

Yes, as a member of the safari industry, I've heard all the justifications from hunters. And I still fail to understand the mentality of those who spout this rubbish (and then consider themselves enlightened).

I've done some research for LyndaS and came across this article on the subject by Gareth Patterson from June 17, 2009. He lives in Knysna and knows the area well.

This last week we heard of the South African High Court ruling that in the medium to long term could result at last in the end of canned lion trophy hunting in South Africa. (Over 1,000 lions were hunted/shot in South Africa last year alone by trophy hunters, according to one report). ... read more by clicking on this link:

http://garethpattersonafrica.blogspo...1_archive.html

Discussion about African conservation: www.garethpatterson.com

Well known for his work on the African lion, Gareth Patterson is an environmentalist, independent wildlife researcher and author who has worked tirelessly for more than twenty-five years for the greater protection of African wildlife. Patterson’s love for the wild has spurred various projects surrounding animal rights. He is the author of:

Cry for the Lions (1989)
Where the Lion Walked (1991)
The Lions’ Legacy (1991)
Last of the Free (1994)
With My Soul Amongst Lions (1995)
Dying to be Free (1998)
Making a Killing (2000)
To Walk with Lions (2001)

LyndaS,
I would say that anytime you pay money to pet a lion cub, to walk with lions etc., you are contributing to the canned lion hunting industry. That in my opinion is the sad truth. Any animal that's been petted by man, cannot live free and be safe.

At the Africat Foundation, they release 90% of the captured cheetahs back into the wild, but you will not see those cheetahs when you visit there. You will only see the 10% that cannot go back into the wild again. Those stay at Africat and to my knowledge do not go to any canned hunting farms.

Bushkid,

I am well aware of some the practices that a number of these organisations carry out, especially those that bred lions in regards to the manner in which cubs are treated.

From a personal perspective, from someone who has also worked in the industry, I am anti-hunting, though I have come to accept it is a neccessary evil in the current conservation model and in the development of South Africa in particular.

It is a massive revenue generator for the RSA, which was my point about finding a viable alternative so that it does not destroy a large chunk of a nations rural economy.

There is a natural reaction to jump in and list examples of hunters misbehaving, scientists misrepresenting facts etc etc. Both sides can present the same arguments. I could easily list a number of instances where tourists have contributed towards the death of a wild animal, like;

- When too many boats surrounded an Elephant crossong of the Chobe, a youngster panicked and drowned.

Or highlight research that is highly questionable.

I must admit that historically and even now, many hunters just want to destroy. Though private farm owners etc know, they need a hunt a sustainable amount if they want to have clients the following year.

Even if they buy their trophies in, it will encourage someone else to bred them.

You seem to have glossed over many of the subtle points that I have made in my post before jumping into your rather aggressive response.

If you read through carefully, my point about dispersal ranges refers to non-prime areas, we are talking about countries like Botswana/Zambia/Zimbabwe where game management areas are larger in size than most of the national parks(no fences, wildlife migrate). They are areas that often are only productive during rainy season and/or have human habitation in them at the fringes of a wildlife zone.

You can't sell high end safaris, only for clients to spend 4 days driving through a Mopane woodland or take them to areas with skittish aniamls due to human prenence.

I completely agree that 5* lodge in a prime area will completely outstrip hunting revenues. Though how many of these resorts can the market sustain? Judging by the current occupancies following the recession, I think a credit binge had a lot to do with the popularity of expensive safaris.

I am not doubting that Wildlife numbers have diminished in Southern Africa, human pressure is evident, though recent trends compared to Kenya (full hunting ban) have remained quite positive.

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news...ife009.html#cr

To quote:

The study provides the most detailed evidence to date on declines in the ungulate populations in the Mara and how this phenomenon is linked to the rapid expansion of human populations near the boundaries of the reserve. For example, an analysis of the monthly sample counts indicates that the losses were as high as 95 percent for giraffes, 80 percent for warthogs, 76 percent for hartebeest, and 67 percent for impala. Researchers say the declines they documented are supported by previous studies that have found dramatic drops in the reserve of once abundant wildebeest, gazelles and zebras.

"The situation we documented paints a bleak picture and requires urgent and decisive action if we want to save this treasure from disaster," said Joseph Ogutu, the lead author of the study and a statistical ecologist at ILRI. "Our study offers the best evidence to date that wildlife losses in the reserve are widespread and substantial, and that these trends are likely linked to the steady increase in human settlements on lands adjacent to the reserve."

Yet the declines have not been as great in areas that have hunting in the human wildife buffer zones and give animals an economic value.

I am not here to defend that all hunters are ethical, abide by the rules and believe in conserving nature. Though I am equally disgusted by the behaviour of many tourists that get animals killed needlsy each year.

It is not the open-shut case you try to make it. I would ask you again to propose an alternative to the status quo.

This unfortunately goes beyond the moral aspect of the debate. Stopping hunting is the easy part, finding other industries to replace the lost revenues is third countries is tough.

It is great to be passionate about conservation and wildlife, though we also need to be objective and look at the larger picture.

You bring up question of culling, it is not the problem, just one of the solutions. Yet so much time is spent saying no to culling, rather than working on more sustainable alternatives for the environment.

I am completely against lion hugging etc, particularly the Lion walking, though canned hunting is a slightly different industry. Though I understand that many females have to end up somewhere.

I would finally question on what grounds you claim that canned hunts do not relieve the pressure on wild lions?

For example, Canned hunts have given an outlet to a number of hunters wanting to bag the big trophy to brag to their friends about. These are the people with money to spare and no real care for nature. In the the same period that this industry has really grown, there have been hunting moratoriums in Botswana and also parts of Zimbabwe, hence, not so much pressure on wild lions. Hunters who repect nature, who I have met, appreciate the need to conserve.

The pressure on Wild Lions has been reduced as PH's can mix their cleints hunts and include a certain lion. In some cases, clients are not even informed they have shot a canned lion.

lbj2
Make a long story short:
You are repeating the same lame arguments which that sick industry endlessly repeats over and over again in its own defense for ages.

Commenting: waste of time and energy.

SV ((@))