Reinstate Hunting in Kenya?
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 02:41 PM
#42
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Bill,
Those are my thoughts, too. The passion is misdirected, but that is just a reflection of western society in general.
And Kavey, you have a point as well, but if there was 'true' passion, more indeed would join in. Mostly, in my view, the problem is apathy. I'm glad to know that you enjoy strong debate and don't feel threatened by it.
What annoys me is the 'cheap shot' assumption that those of us who are opposed to hunting are ruled by emotion and nothing but, and that hunters are ruled by their heads. Hmmm...here's another cheap shot: I see much emotion in these faces...pride and pleasure mostly. I doubt if any was thinking at this moment of the great good they have done for the cause of conservation.
http://www.hunt-africa.com/botswana_photo_gallery.htm
John
Those are my thoughts, too. The passion is misdirected, but that is just a reflection of western society in general.
And Kavey, you have a point as well, but if there was 'true' passion, more indeed would join in. Mostly, in my view, the problem is apathy. I'm glad to know that you enjoy strong debate and don't feel threatened by it.
What annoys me is the 'cheap shot' assumption that those of us who are opposed to hunting are ruled by emotion and nothing but, and that hunters are ruled by their heads. Hmmm...here's another cheap shot: I see much emotion in these faces...pride and pleasure mostly. I doubt if any was thinking at this moment of the great good they have done for the cause of conservation.
http://www.hunt-africa.com/botswana_photo_gallery.htm
John
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 03:44 PM
#43
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
"What annoys me is the 'cheap shot' assumption that those of us who are opposed to hunting are ruled by emotion and nothing"
John, please quote or post some links to serious scientific papers and studies. Links to these pictures are just transporting emotions, nothing else.
"and that hunters are ruled by their heads."
Maybe we should differentiate between operators and clients?
Here's another link to such pictures, www.rannsafaris.com/trophy-rooms.html (and it's difficult to keep my emotions under control if looking at these pictures). But if you look at the Lion Safari rate sheet of this operator (www.rannsafaris.com/rates-info.html) you also find this remarkable line: "Resource Utilization Contribution of $10,000 is payable to Conservation Force and is a tax deductible donation. This fee will be used for lion conservation projects in Botswana and East Africa."
John, please quote or post some links to serious scientific papers and studies. Links to these pictures are just transporting emotions, nothing else.
"and that hunters are ruled by their heads."
Maybe we should differentiate between operators and clients?
Here's another link to such pictures, www.rannsafaris.com/trophy-rooms.html (and it's difficult to keep my emotions under control if looking at these pictures). But if you look at the Lion Safari rate sheet of this operator (www.rannsafaris.com/rates-info.html) you also find this remarkable line: "Resource Utilization Contribution of $10,000 is payable to Conservation Force and is a tax deductible donation. This fee will be used for lion conservation projects in Botswana and East Africa."
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 04:53 PM
#46
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,395
Likes: 0
nyama, I agree but do you have a list of less attractive game areas we can go to and still see the incredible amount of game we see in the attractive areas? I went last year to an unattractive area on the Caprivi Strip and didn't see much of anything and was greatly disappointed. The reason we go is to see and shoot (with a camera) animals, <b>not</b> to see a wasteland of nothing but dead grass and an occasional impala or baboon. The reason I go to the attractive areas is because that's where the animals I've flown half way around the world to see are.
P.S. I'm 100% against hunting.
P.S. I'm 100% against hunting.
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 05:00 PM
#47
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
<i><b>Maybe we should differentiate between operators and clients?</b></i>
Nyama, how can we? Why else do the operators use these photos to attract more clients? They use emotions to advertise their services, then, like you, criticise opponents of hunting for being emotional. So they deserve having these photos circulated more widely and perhaps stir up emotions that they do not like. To use a cliche, they cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Nyama, there is more common ground between you and me than you are aware of. I just know there has to be a better way than the simplistic 'solution' of using hunting. Surely you agree with my statement earlier in this thread that man has a sad history of poor conservation decisions? I believe the use of hunting is just another poor decision. If we just sit back and accept it, there's less chance of clever people (I'm not one) coming up with something better.
John
Nyama, how can we? Why else do the operators use these photos to attract more clients? They use emotions to advertise their services, then, like you, criticise opponents of hunting for being emotional. So they deserve having these photos circulated more widely and perhaps stir up emotions that they do not like. To use a cliche, they cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Nyama, there is more common ground between you and me than you are aware of. I just know there has to be a better way than the simplistic 'solution' of using hunting. Surely you agree with my statement earlier in this thread that man has a sad history of poor conservation decisions? I believe the use of hunting is just another poor decision. If we just sit back and accept it, there's less chance of clever people (I'm not one) coming up with something better.
John
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 05:19 PM
#48
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
"do you have a list of less attractive game areas we can go to and still see the incredible amount of game we see in the attractive areas?"
matnikstym, that's impossible, "less attractive" means less amount and diversity of game. Unfortunately there are many of these areas in Africa.
To quote safariex in the "Hunting in Botswana" thread (http://www.fodors.com/forums/pgMessa...tid=34958984):
"The bulk of the hunting areas on the map are not similar to the areas frequented by the photo tourists. The photo tourists in the main visit the prime game viewing areas and the hunters do not. In fact the bulk of the hunting areas are in god forsaken, desolate and remote areas that no photo tourist would tolerate for more than 30 minutes. Largely the mopane veld areas. In the peak of the hunting season there is not even a leaf visible for miles and miles just hot sun and dust with dry mopane branches. From a photo tourism perspective this area would generate zero income. Simple resource economics dictates that it would then have zero capital value. However this land has 2 alternate uses - (1) for hunting (mainly elephant and buffalo) (2) for cattle farming."
The problem is: most photo tourists are against hunting, but if you ask them to "sacrifice" some days of their journey to support the fight against hunting, they are suddenly no longer interested in this topic.
matnikstym, that's impossible, "less attractive" means less amount and diversity of game. Unfortunately there are many of these areas in Africa.
To quote safariex in the "Hunting in Botswana" thread (http://www.fodors.com/forums/pgMessa...tid=34958984):
"The bulk of the hunting areas on the map are not similar to the areas frequented by the photo tourists. The photo tourists in the main visit the prime game viewing areas and the hunters do not. In fact the bulk of the hunting areas are in god forsaken, desolate and remote areas that no photo tourist would tolerate for more than 30 minutes. Largely the mopane veld areas. In the peak of the hunting season there is not even a leaf visible for miles and miles just hot sun and dust with dry mopane branches. From a photo tourism perspective this area would generate zero income. Simple resource economics dictates that it would then have zero capital value. However this land has 2 alternate uses - (1) for hunting (mainly elephant and buffalo) (2) for cattle farming."
The problem is: most photo tourists are against hunting, but if you ask them to "sacrifice" some days of their journey to support the fight against hunting, they are suddenly no longer interested in this topic.
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 05:50 PM
#49
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Nayama said "The problem is: most photo tourists are against hunting, but if you ask them to "sacrifice" some days of their journey to support the fight against hunting, they are suddenly no longer interested in this topic."
If there were a viable opportunity to do so, I would, absolutely - in fact a couple of days worth of safari money goes to conservation in various african NGO organisations a year and I am sure there are others also here who do likewise - we are already aware and putting in our best available effort from 5,000 Km's away.
My views on hunting are emotional, ethical and already stated on the Hunting in Botswana thread so i won't go over that ground. I am trying to see the sense in encouraging hunting as a conservation - I understand that the view from the "Hunting Conservation" viewpoint is in the making of previously "undesirable" or degraded land "viable" as a hunting area; which that faction states will mean restoration of healthy populations, bio-diversity etc.
What I cannot make sense of is that there is no creative, all out effort to do it in some other way that does not have to destroy the wildlife that is supposedly the focus of the kill-to-consereve view.
We are such clever creatures - we are emotional, our feelings (and mental reactions to our feelings called convictions)have us in many camps - the hunting camp, the photo camp, the don't go at all camp, the who- cares camp.
If we can send a spaceship to orbit mars, find cures for many various isidious diseases, invent the bra
- why can't we manage to bring about world peace, conserve (with great urgency) what remains of our natural world and get it right?
Because everybody has a different idea of what right is, eh?
I grapple with the complexity of these issues as I can see others here do too.
If there were a viable opportunity to do so, I would, absolutely - in fact a couple of days worth of safari money goes to conservation in various african NGO organisations a year and I am sure there are others also here who do likewise - we are already aware and putting in our best available effort from 5,000 Km's away.
My views on hunting are emotional, ethical and already stated on the Hunting in Botswana thread so i won't go over that ground. I am trying to see the sense in encouraging hunting as a conservation - I understand that the view from the "Hunting Conservation" viewpoint is in the making of previously "undesirable" or degraded land "viable" as a hunting area; which that faction states will mean restoration of healthy populations, bio-diversity etc.
What I cannot make sense of is that there is no creative, all out effort to do it in some other way that does not have to destroy the wildlife that is supposedly the focus of the kill-to-consereve view.
We are such clever creatures - we are emotional, our feelings (and mental reactions to our feelings called convictions)have us in many camps - the hunting camp, the photo camp, the don't go at all camp, the who- cares camp.
If we can send a spaceship to orbit mars, find cures for many various isidious diseases, invent the bra
- why can't we manage to bring about world peace, conserve (with great urgency) what remains of our natural world and get it right?Because everybody has a different idea of what right is, eh?
I grapple with the complexity of these issues as I can see others here do too.
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 05:56 PM
#50
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,395
Likes: 0
Unfortunately for me, I tolerated an area like that for three long days and it didn't help to support the fight against hunting. The area I was in could not possibly support hunting or cattle, though I would have been happy to see a cow or two.
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 06:10 PM
#51
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
I am completely against “trophy hunting.” I can’t condone the basic cruelty involved, nor am I persuaded by the arguments that hunting concessions are good over-all for conservation. It just doesn’t compute.
I suppose a hunting concession is preferable to a strip-mine, but I don’t know if this is ever the choice.
I googled African trophy hunting and was sickened by the smiling faces of hunters squatting over their trophies. Most horrifying was the advertising for killing white and black (yes black, price on request) rhinos, animals that have been decimated in so many places.
One of these concessions was in the Natal near St. Lucia and Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Reserve. We spent four days at Phinda, a nearby reserve (maybe it’s good they have fences) that is growing each year. One of the reasons we chose Phinda was because of our interest in its mission. I would be surprised if the Phinda model returned less to the local community than a hunting concession. Sure, some individual guides or hunter assistants at the hunting lodge might make more money in tips in any given week but with the huge number of local Zulu people employed at Phinda, I believe the financial benefit to the communities is greater, not to mention their contribution to conservation and education.
Is trophy hunting growing in popularity? I have no idea but most of the old-time camps—like Mala Mala and Londolozi—started as hunting camps and changed to photo safaris. Perhaps the attitudes that make hunting safaris attractive will continue to evolve as people’s sensibilities continue to change.
As far as tolerating areas with less game, I did find that although I saw loads of game at Londolozi, and would recommend it or another Sabi Sand camp to a new safari-goer, if I was to repeat any of my stays on a future visit, I would go back to Ngala before a Sabi Sand camp. It was just more fun and more rewarding not to know what would be around the next corner and it felt more like seeing “wild” animals in a wilder setting. (I know it’s nothing like Botswana etc. Got to start someplace!)
CW
I suppose a hunting concession is preferable to a strip-mine, but I don’t know if this is ever the choice.
I googled African trophy hunting and was sickened by the smiling faces of hunters squatting over their trophies. Most horrifying was the advertising for killing white and black (yes black, price on request) rhinos, animals that have been decimated in so many places.
One of these concessions was in the Natal near St. Lucia and Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Reserve. We spent four days at Phinda, a nearby reserve (maybe it’s good they have fences) that is growing each year. One of the reasons we chose Phinda was because of our interest in its mission. I would be surprised if the Phinda model returned less to the local community than a hunting concession. Sure, some individual guides or hunter assistants at the hunting lodge might make more money in tips in any given week but with the huge number of local Zulu people employed at Phinda, I believe the financial benefit to the communities is greater, not to mention their contribution to conservation and education.
Is trophy hunting growing in popularity? I have no idea but most of the old-time camps—like Mala Mala and Londolozi—started as hunting camps and changed to photo safaris. Perhaps the attitudes that make hunting safaris attractive will continue to evolve as people’s sensibilities continue to change.
As far as tolerating areas with less game, I did find that although I saw loads of game at Londolozi, and would recommend it or another Sabi Sand camp to a new safari-goer, if I was to repeat any of my stays on a future visit, I would go back to Ngala before a Sabi Sand camp. It was just more fun and more rewarding not to know what would be around the next corner and it felt more like seeing “wild” animals in a wilder setting. (I know it’s nothing like Botswana etc. Got to start someplace!)
CW
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 06:11 PM
#52
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 0
I, too, would definitely "sacrifice" some days to support the fight against hunting as I'm sure many of us would.
Most wildlife/nature photographers are also naturalists and would do whatever it takes to ensure the pristineness of wildlife habitats remain as they are.
And if that means taking a couple of days away from photography in more populated game reserves, I don't believe it's too much to ask. I can find something to photograph anywhere I go. That's part of the allure of nature photography.
And per the producers of Planet Earth, of which I just finished watching this week's episodes, they want people to be emotional about this world and the beauty that abounds in it. So if we "anti-hunters" get emotional about the topic, so be it. Passion and emotion is what creates change. And if we keep it up, one day we may be able to do just that! I, for one, will never give up the fight against "sport" hunting.
Most wildlife/nature photographers are also naturalists and would do whatever it takes to ensure the pristineness of wildlife habitats remain as they are.
And if that means taking a couple of days away from photography in more populated game reserves, I don't believe it's too much to ask. I can find something to photograph anywhere I go. That's part of the allure of nature photography.
And per the producers of Planet Earth, of which I just finished watching this week's episodes, they want people to be emotional about this world and the beauty that abounds in it. So if we "anti-hunters" get emotional about the topic, so be it. Passion and emotion is what creates change. And if we keep it up, one day we may be able to do just that! I, for one, will never give up the fight against "sport" hunting.
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 06:14 PM
#53
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Nyama,
I agree with your last paragraph because it's not a generalisation. But can we please avoid quoting generalisations such as this:<b>"In fact the bulk of the hunting areas are in god forsaken, desolate and remote areas that <i>no photo tourist</i> would tolerate for more than 30 minutes. Largely the mopane veld areas."</b> It is probably true of most photo tourists, but as a more-serious-than-average photo tourist, I have spent many
enjoyable hours on foot and wheels in desolate mopane woodland, spotting only the occasional wildlife. It fascinates me. And I have just spent three days camping in the arid red sandhill country of the Australian outback, where the only wildlife on the ground were scorpions and lizards...it's one of my favourite past-times. So please, not all the opponents of hunting are the same
John
I agree with your last paragraph because it's not a generalisation. But can we please avoid quoting generalisations such as this:<b>"In fact the bulk of the hunting areas are in god forsaken, desolate and remote areas that <i>no photo tourist</i> would tolerate for more than 30 minutes. Largely the mopane veld areas."</b> It is probably true of most photo tourists, but as a more-serious-than-average photo tourist, I have spent many
enjoyable hours on foot and wheels in desolate mopane woodland, spotting only the occasional wildlife. It fascinates me. And I have just spent three days camping in the arid red sandhill country of the Australian outback, where the only wildlife on the ground were scorpions and lizards...it's one of my favourite past-times. So please, not all the opponents of hunting are the same
John
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 06:14 PM
#54
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
To Thembi, and any other interested Fodorite:
In Botswana there's a small community-run lodge in NG33 bordering Moremi Game Reserve, Santawani Lodge (www.santawanilodge.com). This lodge is run by the Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management Trust (STMT). NG33 is a small photographic concession surrounded by a much larger concession, NG34. NG34 is also administered STMT, but mainly used for hunting. Once there has been a photographic camp, Starlings Camp, but without much success. What about "sacrifying" 3 nights of your next Botswana safari and staying at Santawani Lodge, convincing STMT that photo tourism pays and that STMT shouldn't re-new the hunting lease in NG34?
In Botswana there's a small community-run lodge in NG33 bordering Moremi Game Reserve, Santawani Lodge (www.santawanilodge.com). This lodge is run by the Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management Trust (STMT). NG33 is a small photographic concession surrounded by a much larger concession, NG34. NG34 is also administered STMT, but mainly used for hunting. Once there has been a photographic camp, Starlings Camp, but without much success. What about "sacrifying" 3 nights of your next Botswana safari and staying at Santawani Lodge, convincing STMT that photo tourism pays and that STMT shouldn't re-new the hunting lease in NG34?
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 06:24 PM
#55
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
John, I already stated this above in another post. English is not my first language, and writing in a foreign language about this topic is extremely difficult for me. I'm happy if I can quote someone else whose post expresses (or nearly expresses) my opinion. Please don't let us drill this down on single words.
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 06:25 PM
#56
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,440
Likes: 0
Predator,
A lot more people may read these serious threads than you realize. If I cannot contribute something substantive, then I do not chime in. Instead I'll reflect on what those more knowledgeable than myself have written. Lack of posting does not mean lack of interest, lack of action, or lack of dedication ($ contributions) to the plight of endangered species.
I appreciate your insightful posts on these grave topics as well as on lighter matters.
We have mentioned before that a wildlife travel/viewing discussion site would be interesting. Heavier matters, such as these, could be well suited for that kind of site.
A lot more people may read these serious threads than you realize. If I cannot contribute something substantive, then I do not chime in. Instead I'll reflect on what those more knowledgeable than myself have written. Lack of posting does not mean lack of interest, lack of action, or lack of dedication ($ contributions) to the plight of endangered species.
I appreciate your insightful posts on these grave topics as well as on lighter matters.
We have mentioned before that a wildlife travel/viewing discussion site would be interesting. Heavier matters, such as these, could be well suited for that kind of site.
Apr 22nd, 2007 | 06:32 PM
#58
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Nyama, your English is excellent even by the standards of somebody's first language. It may be difficult to compose, but it comes out beautifully and I believe you comprehend very well. Generalisations are always wrong, often unfair and sometimes offensive. If you didn't know it before, you know it now.
John
John
