aby

<b> Basically, We are all hunters </b>
some hunt with binoculars
some with cameras
&amp; others...

fbirder

divewop said: &quot;There are many other ways for poor countries to become more self-reliant and self-sustainable, but unfortunately, it's just easier to generate income from people wanting to shoot animals.&quot;

I'm sure we'd all love to hear about these 'many other ways' of &quot;delivering economic value to the local people and educating them that the benefits they are receiving are a direct result of conserving the wildlife&quot; (to nick an apposite phrase from PB).

afrigalah

I'm with you all the way, divewop. I suspect we've just had a demonstration of the truth of your comment,<i> It's a no-brainer because no leg work or thought is involved </i>. The human species has a sad history of taking the easy route and applying very poor management solutions to the environment.

John

John

Kavey

Nyama

I made it very clear in my post that, whilst I do find it personally abhorrent to hunt for sport, pleasure, whatever people want to call it, and find it bewildering that people find joy in such a thing - I do accept that hunting, when well managed, can have a positive impact on conservation. That is why I didn't say it was &quot;bad&quot; in my post, as you imply in your reply to me. The fact that it can have a positive impact doesn't make the fact that people actually enjoy it any less abhorrent to me on a personal level. But it does make me less likely to campaign against it. Do you see the difference?

There is a natural instinct in us to feed ourselves and for that reason I have no problem with those who hunt (non-endangered species) for meat. I do feel as a meat eater that one should totally understand that all meat one eats, whether bought in a supermarket or killed oneself, is an animal that has been killed. If one can't accept that one should not eat meat.

Aby is right to an extent that we are all hunters. And to be honest, I think that anyone who is a meat-eater cannot, without being a hypocrite, condemn those who hunt (non-endangered species) for meat. I certainly find that activity absolutely acceptable on a personal level.

As for calling those who go with binoculars, cameras etc. hunters - I think that's a little disengenious. Those of us who enjoy seeing an animal, perhaps capturing it's likeness on still or moving film, above all appreciate the beauty of the animal in life. Those who seek to kill it seem to me to find more beauty in their own achievement or perhaps in it's skin or trophy head than they do in the living animal itself. That's how I see it. Of course, I'm sure no sports/ trophy hunter would agree with my description of him/her. I'm just calling it as I see it here.

But like I said, whilst well-managed hunting concessions remain a viable and successful conservation route, I do not personally fight to ban them.

nyama

Kavey, my statement was meant from the viewpoint of the local community members. If I get you right it is acceptable for you if these people are killing animals for meat. Now there's a foreign person who's doing the dirty part. The result is the same, the animal is dead and the people have their meat. I don't see any difference here. If this foreign person is paying money for doing his part, it's even better for the community. Is this so bad? (Bad was meant in this context.)

aby

the word SUSTAINABLE was mentioned. Are the prime game-parks sustainable?
experts are quite pessimistic

At a certain stage we've realized that out of the &quot;4 pillars of conservation&quot;
economics is probably more important (to locals) than other factors

note that most touristic-Safari countries allow hunting.

since (in the late 70s) President Kenyatta's ban on hunting, Richard Leakey tripled entrance fees to parks, but still hunting is a lot more profitable...

i'd like to note something about Mike Norton-Griffiths, as i get the impression not everyone is familiar with his name
(i'm going to my book shelf to get 2 important books with his participation)
N-G is co-editor &amp; contributor to the
Sinclair, A.R.E and Norton-Griffiths, M (Editors) Serengeti: Dynamics of an Ecosystem (1979. Chicago U P)
he was resident ecologist in Serengeti Research Institute 1969-1973
associate at the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College, London
(if i'm not mistaken since 1984)
He is a contributor to the 1995 second book
Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management, and Conservation of an Ecosystem

He is not a &quot;preacher&quot; for hunting, at least in papers i've seen

aby

Kavey - it's not important for me to argue on this point
to make it short, what i meant among other things
1.similarly, all r Collectors - some collect species on a list, some photos, others...
2. what psychologists see as sublimation

Kavey

Nyama, you're still missing my point.

Whatever the situation - whether the trophy hunter's money benefits the community or not, whether it leads to an area of land being protected or not, whether the meat gets eaten or not - is irrelevent to that part of my post where I'm talking about my personal feelings regarding the desire of someone to kill an animal for sport/ pleasure/ trophy. I will never be able to understand the mindset of someone who finds pleasure in killing for fun as opposed to meat. It's the very fact that their motivation is the thrill of the kill that is abhorrent to me.

My feelings about that desire to kill for sport is a separate entity to my opinions on whether hunting is acceptable or not.

Those opinions are, as has been indicated in this thread, based on more rational issues such as whether the hunting in question does help preserve wilderness environments, protect wildlife, support local communities etc. And where those things happen, then I do not condemn hunting per se.

But not condemning it or seeking to ban it does not mean that I find the desire to do it any less disgusting.

Kavey

Aby, it was my impression that we were discussing an issue rather than arguing but I guess that's just semantics!

Suffice to say, I'm posting here because I find it a stimulating and interesting discussion, not because I am feeling argumentative!!

But I still maintain that there is a difference in collecting when one person's collecting activity has little or no impact on the wildlife and another's collecting activity ends it's life and effectively precludes both the animal from living it's life and other collectors from enjoying it and collecting it also. That was the only point I was making - that there is a difference between hunting to kill and hunting to see, photograph, film etc.

nyama

Kavey, I got your point. Did you get mine?

In that quote you differentiate between unreasonable killing (fun/sport/pleasure) and reasonable killing (meat). What I wanted to show is that this can be a very relative concept. A small shift of viewpoint makes unreasonable reasonable and vice versa. Killing is killing, a loss of a living being. If I would attend a hunt it makes no big difference to my feelings if this is a trophy hunt or a traditional hunt for meat, the sadness about that killed creature can only be lessened if I know that its dead accomplishes a good purpose (for instance meat); the motives of the killer are less relevant to me. If a trophy hunter kills an animal and the local community gets all the meat, and a local hunter kills an animal but can only carry a small portion of this meat to his village, I certainly would prefer the first case.

Kavey

You haven't got my point.

Where I'm talking about finding something abhorrent that's not related to the bit about where the meat goes. It's about the mindset of the person pulling the trigger for pleasure. That's the bit I find abhorrent.

Yes, I have said above that where someone shoots for meat I don't find that problematic. This isn't just because the animal meat is being used but because of the mindset. I can understand and appreciate the mindset of the person that kills for meat. I cannot understand the mindset of the person that kills for pleasure, even if they do so in the knowledge that the meat does get used further down the chain.

It's the mindset of killing for joy that I am saying I find abhorrent.

Of course, where hunting is to occur then yes, it's better that the animal meat is put to good use by the local community. It certainly makes the death of that animal less of a waste.

But for me, it doesn't make the mindset of the actual hunter any less alien.

I had already understood your point about it being better for the meat to be used than not. But that doesn't relate to the aspect of hunting that I find abhorrent which is the act of killing for pleasure rather than for necessity.

And again, none of this feeling about the mindset of the hunter impinges on my opinions about whether (licensed) hunting is a good or bad thing.

That's a separate thing to my personal feelings about the desire to hunt for sport and is much more related to the issue's we've already discussed including protection of the wilderness, protection of the wildlife within the area, support and enrichment of the local community and so on. The meat being put to use comes under that and is certainly better than the meat not being wasted.

It's just not related to what I dislike which is the mindset of the hunter himself. Those who hunt/ fish etc. to put food on their tables do not, in my opinion, have that mindset, and that is why I tried to distinguish, above.

Kavey

So, for me, in terms of the PART of hunting that is most abhorrent to me - the mindset/ motivation of the hunter IS of relevance to me in terms of my feelings.

Not in terms of the net results, perhaps and that is why these feelings are not the ones I use to judge whether hunting is right/ wrong/ acceptable.

But in terms of personal feelings.

I do get that for you it is not relevant and for you the most relevant thing is the death of the animal.

nyama

Kavey, believe me, I got your point. You made it very clear in your first post.

When I quoted you, I wasn't directly addressing you; otherwise I had put your name in front. This all were thoughts about this line, not your complete post. I understand what you're saying, your opinion, your feelings about the trophy hunters, and your preferences.

What I wanted to show you is a different opinion, different preferences. Please also note my usage of &quot;can&quot;.

PredatorBiologist

Aby: I used the word sustainable in terms of hunting only populations that can be maintained on a sustainable basis. Populations from a numbers point of view can be carefully managed to sustain a number of individuals that approaches the natural carrying capacity for the area. Since National Parks, game reserves etc. are largely becoming isolated islands there are large scale genetic sustainability issues that go well beyond the issue of using hunting as a conservation measure, so yes, all sustainability is in jeopardy. Creating additional habitat, especially connective corridors is the best way to improve that situation which takes us back to the need to make wildlife habitat carry enough value to become the land use of choice.

Divewop: I am very interested in finding alternative ways to develop non-consumptive value that will lead to the protection of wild lands by the local communities and I hope you will post some ideas here for people to think about. To date most protected lands are a public good -- simply protected because the government responded to the constituency with a moral belief that there is value to preserving the natural heritage and that these lands would not be protected in the private economy in suitable acreage due to the lack of financial reward. In developing countries the constituency is often arguing the other way, to open up the lands for their livelihoods rather than protect more. The second wave of protection has come from NGO's that have been able to raise money from people like us that do value wilderness and wildlife simply for intrinsic value. Of course these places are rarely just protected as wilderness instead they are opened to tourism and/or recreation to try and produce revenues that can contribute to management and the economy. With all these efforts habitat continues to disappear at an alarming rate as the growth in human population is leading to people moving to what were once 'marginal or undesirable' lands that we left to the wildlife. This is why we are stuck in this terrible situation where the economics of land use are going to rule. Economic value has to be tied directly to the wild habitat and worth more to the locals than it is to graze cattle or farm. There is an economic opportunity that they forego by not using the land and leaving it protected. This works if they can make money from it, if they don't they will utilize the land in a way they benefit. It's an unfortunate reality of the human race but even if these local people receive better assistance from the government or a trickle down from a project in Nairobi they are still going to look at the land and only conserve it if they accrue a direct benefit from it that exceeds other uses.

This is an excerpt from an article on George Schaller -- who is without argument the greatest conservation biologist of our time and has successfully created over 20 parks and reserves around the world.

&quot;Some day soon, foreign hunters may come here to hunt Marco Polo sheep,&quot; he said. &quot;If that happens, the Kyrgyz people must benefit.&quot; The men nodded approval. &quot;Foreigners will spend big money to hunt, but only if there are big Marco Polo sheep with big horns.&quot; He let that sink in before making his final pitch. &quot;That means the Kyrgyz people must protect the sheep so they can grow big, and you can make money from them.&quot; The meeting concluded with a hearty round of applause.

Though Schaller is no fan of trophy hunting, he is a pragmatist. If controlled hunting and tourism can bring income to the struggling Kyrgyz, it might provide them incentive to protect Marco Polo sheep from a slow slide toward extinction. &quot;Conservation depends on the goodwill of the locals,&quot; he said. &quot;You've got to get them involved, so they have a stake in the outcome.&quot;
Entire article is here:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ad...-schaller.html

PredatorBiologist

Kavey: I just wanted to follow on your observations and even take it another step. We are all consumers and even though vegetarians may feel better that they think they are not destroying animals there is no escaping it. The agricultural efforts needed to feed us take habitat away from the wildife. A terrible secret beyond that is what they call 'damage control' which is simply the slaughter and waste of wildlife to protect crops. The vegetarian demand for soy beans leads to thousands and thousands of deer being killed each year to protect the crop -- a cruel irony.

Kavey

Nyama, yes I had thought when you quoted me that you were addressing me. Thanks for clarifying...

PB yes this is absolutely true. For example, so many products on our shelves contain palm nut oil which is often grown in plantations that have been created on illegally cleared forests and are doing irreversible damage. Leading to potentail death, even extinction of many animals. And that includes products vegetarians use. I'm trying to find out more on this so I can reduce our own use of products containing ingredients that are produced in such a way as to do such damage but it's so hard to find out about!

divewop

Back to the original article, as we all know, culling happens not because of too many animals, but because of too many people encroaching on animals habitats.

It's all due to the ever-increasing overpopulation of humans, and the lack of space we're facing, not the lack of space the animals are creating. Essentially, it's make room for people so let's kill or hunt the animals that get in our way.


PB-
What I'm talking about in terms of generating revenue and sustainability
is not specifically geared to wildlife habitats, but giving the local people other means to earn a living other than using land for farming, for cattle grazing, hunting, etc.

If people in the communities learn to make and sell things among themselves, they, in turn, will not need assistance and the government will not have to rely on activities such as sport hunting to bring in revenue.

If there are different ways to help the locals earn a living, it could very well cut back on encroaching on wildlife habitats thus reducing the need to cull herds or participate in &quot;sport&quot; (I hate that word) hunting.

One of my favorite countries, Rwanda, is a prime example of the overuse of land by overpopulation and farming. The wildlife was essentially hunted and/or pushed out of the country except for a few isolated pockets. Now they are looking at other means to earn livings instead of farming, cattle grazing, etc.

For example, a generous donation came in rural areas in the form of several sewing machines so locals can learn to make and sell clothes. Other locals were given knitting machines.

Some folks I know are teaching locals in a couple of villages in Tanzania to make and sell pottery.

Once people can understand that relying on use of the land is not the only means of support, things may begin to change.
The governments can focus the revenues made from communities for protecting the wildlife and habitats.

I'd hate to see the land disappear in other countries as it has in Rwanda.

I understand there are still a lot of variables in the equation and education plays a key role in it. But you have to start somewhere.

Kavey- I totally agree with you. What kind of person does it take to be a 'sport hunter', one who pays big bucks to get their jollies from killing an animal for trophy or otherwise?

As one of the camp managers, born and raised in Africa, said during my recent trip, &quot;Hunters have no ethics.&quot;

So guys, don't 'shoot' me, I'm just the messenger! ;-)

afrigalah

Leaving aside my abhorrence of killing for sport (and I've been on both sides of the fence...I wonder why, in my younger days, I wasted my skill, my time, my money and the lives of other critters, albeit 'only' small game)....

I think most of us are aware that (as nyama quite correctly points out) quotas and restrictions exist in hunting concessions. And advocates of hunting frequently point to the 'good' they do for conservation efforts. Maybe the former are effective in some respects and the latter is true in some respects. But does anybody truly believe that the taking of such magnificent specimens as those described here: http://www.hunt-africa.com/botswana_overview.htm
does much to ensure the survival of this species in the wild?

I believe a sport hunter can pay as much as 140,000 USD for a 30-day lion hunt in Botswana. For that sort of money, the hunter is going to take the finest specimen he can find, and will care little if his target is still in its prime and able to perform well as a pride male. In my mind, such a life is worth a damn sight more than the price paid by the hunter.

John

Kavey

One of the things I worry about is those hunting concessions where the tendency is to shoot only the most magnificent individuals of the species. How can this NOT have an impact on the gene pool of those not killed? The top male, the strongest one, the one with the best genes, is taken out. An inferior male gets to be king of the pride and breed where he may not have done naturally.

One only has to look at the demise of the really big tuskers (and even the increase in tuskless herds) to see how selective hunting can affect the gene pool.

I understand, though I don't know, that there are some hunting companies that work to avoid this, though I'm not sure how.

PredatorBiologist

John: thanks for making me vomit with those lion pictures! As you know I have been pretty adamant in my opposition to lion hunting as that is a species that I believe is being mismanaged. That said the 'trophy' pictures are so disturbing and emotion evoking but it is difficult to portray in the same moving way what it looks like in a picture for the habitat to convert to cattle grazing and for a thousand lions to disappear because of it. It's hard to say but I would rather cry over two trophy lion pictures vs. hearing that there are only 100 lions left trying to eke out a stealthy life hunting cattle in what used to be the Mara. To me the middle ground is hunting revenue can help but be limited to certain species and not include ones that are overly sensitive to hunting such as lions. Of course I'm sure they won't forego the huge revenue from the sexy species and that is where I would have major reservations with opening up for hunting. As Kavey pointed out there is a tendency for trophy hunting to weaken the genetic pool by eliminating the individuals that would be naturally selected to survive. To me good management needs to be done by biologists who can make science based decisions but like most things money and politics will likely muddy the decision process.

Divewop: I think microloan programs to help build economic development like you are suggesting are crucial tools that need to be made available and it can have a great positive impact. I am skeptical though that programs not deriving benefit tied to the animals or land will do very much to protect habitat and wildlife. Unfortunately there is a long history of virtually every culture and place where people will utilize the land for their benefit and only conserve it if they derive benefits from doing so. These are people that have a per capita income of $250. If developing economy programs take them to $1,000 a year, which would be incredible success I don't think they would be in a place where they would abandon their pastorial culture of cattle and not encroach on the lands. History would even suggest that if they somehow made a lot of money they would just build bigger houses when they take the land -- unfortunately people are greedy and take what benefits them in the short run.

I have to admit I find it a little disappointing that on this board full of educated people of means that are all so passionate about Africa that very few seem to ever get involved with the discussion of these types of issues. Honestly the passion seems more directed at plunge pools, sundowner drinks and ability to find zoo-like habituated animals at every turn, all of which can draw a lot more posters than worries over the real issues that confront the Continent. I guess it is just a travel board so I don't know why I expect more, perhaps many people should claim that they are passionate about travel to Africa rather than Africa itself.

Kavey

PB, I don't think it's just that people aren't concerned with it. But posting in these threads can make one feel vulnerable - I enjoy healthy debate and I don't view it as personal conflict if there is disagreement but some people do find disagreement and strong debate very stressful. It's also difficult for those of us who do not work in the field to open ourselves up to ridicule if we say something that is pointed out as rubbish by an expert! Personally, I enjoy discussions like this as they help me in my constant re-evaluation of opinions and in learning more.

By the way, my sponsorship thread is dead as a dodo. Anyone care to help me fundraise money to protect endangered environments please do have a look at http://www.justgiving.com/kavey THANKS!