Quote for Yahoo story on the pros/cons of legal trophy hunting in Africa

oh good lord... You can all contact me via billbfink@yahoo.com if that'll make you feel safer.

I'm not personally a hunter, but I am a journalist: The point of the Yahoo story is to include the perspective of someone who is a hunter, to get that side of the story shared, to show the potential personal, environmental and economic benefits of regulated, legal hunting --otherwise it'll end up just being an "anti" story if those are the only sources willing to comment on the record. My uncle was a big life-long hunter, but he's dead and I can't interview him, so hopefully someone on this message board can step up.

here's what I'm looking for:

1) "Here's why I chose to go on a African trophy hunt"
2) "Here's how I selected the hunt company" (better game, truer hunt, safety, scenery, legality)
3) "Here's what happened on my hunt" (style of hunt, animals bagged)
4) "Why I would/wouldn't do it again"
5) Your perspectives on why African trophy hunting should be kept legal--and if it should also be kept legal for endangered and threatened species.
I hope you are REALLY who you say you are, other wise a hunter may find a kill you! Do you see how we feel when our life is threatened. This is what law abiding hunters go thru on social media. Of course I wish you no harm, but I truly believe there are anti hunting nut's that would do harm to one of us if they could. I also think while ( if true) your intentions are well meaning anti hunting zealots are lifelong haters of our sport, no amount of scientific fact or other wise will sway them to understand what we love to do. You wanna open some eyes? Write about just how much money anti hunting organizations actually spend on conservation and wildlife...Go ahead it's public record. You may be surprised to see it's not about the animals it's about stopping hunting PERIOD. Which we here know is a death sentence for the future of wildlife.
 
BWH, Thanks for sharing your perspective & answering my questions. I think your membership in Ducks & Trout Unlimited & their work proves that hunters can in fact "put their money where their mouth is" as far as helping the environment & the animals who live there while at the same time hunting. Are you willing to share your real name for a quote for the story? I'm guessing the fact that you're a plainsgame hunter should shield you from most public vitriol, but your call, obviously. I'll be quoting others from pro-hunting organizations as well, but wanted to include at least one "regular guy" in the story. Drop me a line at billbfink@yahoo.com, or the dreaded hotmail address if you'd like to share any additional info.

Mr. Fink,

You can certainly see why people would be suspicious. That is not meant to offend you. However, in todays climate of haters & anti's, one must be guarded. And we see plenty of hacks on here. I'd be happy to address with my 2 cents....

1) Lifelong dream.... adventurous child, grew up in outdoors, read books (Hemingway, Capstick, etc.) Admired Teddy Roosevelt.
2) Years of vetting.... research, attending Safari shows, referrals, etc.
3) Amazing experience.... The scenery, the people, the animals, the food, the terrain. I shot 10 animals... all plainsgame.
4) Hell yes! Going back in May of 2016
5) Why not?!!? It is good for their economy... hell it is an economy. It employs/feeds/homes all types... millions of people. It is extremely game RICH... no shortage of animals. It funds conservation & efforts to protect species.
5a) Endangered/Threatened.... I think animals that are protected, should be just that. Global conservation efforts should always be made, all over the planet to protect species that are "endangered". Those that are not, should still be managed to ensure they do not become endangered or threatened. I can tell you that no other organizations on the planet do more to protect wildlife than Hunters/Conservationist. Hunters raise more money/fund initiatives in hours & days, than activist do in years. That is a fact.

Thank you.
 
The problem with your questions is that the answers's will be like speaking Greek to those who oppose hunting. They just don't get it and that is fine they don't have too, but they will gladly find us guilty in the court of public opinion. Research and write your article on what happened when they stopped hunting in Kenya. Not the Kenya now but the years following and destruction that happened. Write about when the animals have no value what happens then. When the elephants that were once tolerated by the villagers because they received money when they damaged their crops and when the trophy was taken. When the hunting stops and the subsidies stop, so goes the tolerance. They are poisoned and poached because there is no one to deter the poachers. Write that the safari companies foot the bill for a large portion of the anti poaching. Write about the Maasai cattle and their over grazing that is decimating the landscape, but hunting is being blamed for the the loss of wildlife. Africa is a very complicated place, hunting is not responsible for all of it's problems. It is just the easy target. Write about PETA and their likes that don't really give money to any cause, and that they truly only a PR Machine. Yes we hunt, yes we kill animals, but for the most part we are law abiding citizens that pay our taxes
 
Another GOOD READ http://huntergreen.org/conservation/3-ways-hunting-is-saving-africa/



No matter who you are on social media, both hunter and non-hunter alike, we have had our news feeds inundated with the issue of African Trophy Hunting. A subject that due to intense emotion often leaves little fact out on the table, yet gets plenty of fuel from public opinion. A perfect example was the Kendall Jones“scandal” started by Cosmopolitan Magazine. They not only misreported that she killed a rhino (she actually tranquilized the animal for veterinarians to administer medical aid), but their initial “fact check” also missed the fact that tigers do not reside in Africa.

This lack of education on the subject of conservation, and on the impact of hunting on conservation, continue to spiral out of control. After reading a report from The African Wildlife Conservation Fund about the sustainability of African wildlife, we found it necessary to present some cold hard facts about how hunting is saving the wildlife of Africa.

Photography Vs. Hunting

Ecotourism, as “photography” is called in Africa, is not actually having a positive impact on local economies or habitats. It is estimated that in some places only 7% of the money brought in from ecotourism actually stays in the country.* That’s not even close to the hunting revenue, which is as high as 75% staying in the country and particularly in more remote areas where funding is needed the most for wildlife conservation.*

There is a measurable negative environmental impact to the area through the consumption of fossil fuels, littering, and other stresses on the land from the hordes of tourists ecotourism brings in. It is estimated that hunting brings upwards of 30 times greater revenue per person when compared to ecotourism.*

Indiscriminate Revenge Killings

As if snapping a photo has not done enough already, let us bring Botswana’s lion hunting ban front and center. Annually an estimated 1.26 million dollar loss directly goes to the protection, studying, and conservation of the lion, which is not endangered.* We can thank ecotourism for not just shipping their revenue out of the country, but also lobbying to make this ban happen for greater profit and to get rid of competition on lands from hunting outfitters.

Hunting accounts for over 74% of the funding to protect wildlife in Botswana.* Not only did this hurt the financial angle associated with conservation but also it had a negative impact on lion populations. This came from a drastic increase in indiscriminate revenge killings from locals, who previously relied on controlled hunts to target nuisance animals (lionalert.org). In a single swipe, photography tourism helped damage a future for the lion in Botswana.

Anti Pouching and Politics

Ecotourism tends to bring out a lot of what we call “weekend warriors”. That reflects in photographer’s unwillingness to travel to politically unstable countries. In fact recent political instability accounted for a 75% drop in ecotourism in Zimbabwe; leaving hunters as the single largest profit center, not just for wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe, but also revenue to locals.*

While ecotourism is nowhere be found, it leaves plenty of room for poaching. Unless of course we consider the hunting revenue that pays the salary of over 500 anti-poaching game scouts to help secure the future and responsible management of endangered wildlife in Zimbabwe.* We also need to consider the estimated 150 more private anti-poaching scouts that are entirely financed by local hunting outfitters.*

Hunting Preserves

Hunting preserves are not “fenced in” ranches. In Africa they stretch hundreds of miles, made of land often converted from very destructive farming into private hunting grounds. Former farmers are receiving a greater income for protecting wildlife on their land, rather than proactively destroying animals to stop crop damage.*

Studies have shown that from 1972-1992 there was an 80% increase in wildlife populations on lands converted to hunting preserves.* Hunting has also accomplished the largest creations of wildlife management areas on communal land in most cases is the only funding for wildlife conservation.

Conclusion

These facts show a very clear picture that hunting is most likely the only hope for the future of African Wildlife. There is certainly a level of irony in this as mass media pushes emotions of anti-trophy hunting in Africa. All we can do as hunters is continue to not just proactively participate in a sustainable eco-system, but also help some of the most powerful conservation groups on the planet. Ducks Unlimited, The National Wild Turkey Federation, Safari Club International, and many more are looking to secure the future of wildlife for our planet.

For fact check we invite you to follow the following link.

* ‘Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa’ African Wildlife Conservation Fund
 
An even better read....https://ideas.aeon.co/questions/wha...about-africa-except-when-someone-hunts-a-lion

thumb_brigid_placeholder.jpeg


Brigid Haines Socity editorial director aeon
The meaning of an individual animal

Among the reasons not to feel outraged about the killing of Cecil the lion are these two: he had a human name and he was a well-known tourist attraction. I say ‘tourist attraction’ instead of 'beloved lion’ because that hackneyed phrase seems to me a concept empty of meaning. How can a lion be wild and be 'beloved’ by people who saw him once from a safari jeep? You don’t earn the right to 'love’ a lion that way. Cecil was a wild lion who was habituated to humans, collared for a biology study, long-lived and good looking. All those factors have been offered as intensifiers of emotion in the reaction to his killing, but not one of them seems a good reason to care more about this individual lion than any other.

'Cecil’ isn’t the first lion to die when he ventured outside the Hwange National Park. In fact you could argue that a lion of his age has done extremely well to stay alive this long. In a study conducted between 1996 and 2004, 24 out of 62 tagged lions in the Hwange study area were shot dead by sport hunters. Each year around 250 lions are killed - legally - across Africa by trophy-hunters, most of them foreigners who pay staggering amounts of money for the privilege of flying home with a lion head for their wall. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? That’s a very complex question and the only simple answer is that twitter isn’t the best place to decide it. So here’s a start: there are two very different moral issues here which are being confused: the ugly death of a lion at the hands of a sports hunter on the one hand, and the conservation of charismatic predators in Africa on the other.

How do I feel, at a visceral level, about a hunter with a bow and arrow shooting a magnificent big cat; that intelligent, powerful, fierce animal then taking many hours to die, only to be decapitated and shipped to America as a trophy? Well, I don’t feel good. I can’t imagine doing it myself. It is a sad and grotesque end for such a magnificent animal. Still, wild animals come to sad and grotesque ends all the time, especially apex predators. Not many go gently. Canine distemper virus periodically kills many of the lions in Serengeti National Park - a horrible lingering death including grand mal seizures and encephalitis. Many lions die of starvation. When the male lions of a pride die or are killed by rivals, their place is taken by other males who routinely kill all the cubs in order to free up the reproductive potential of 'their’ lionesses. The general estimate is that half of all lion cubs die before the age of two, and 1 in 8 males makes it to adulthood. Wild lions live with porcupine quills in their faces, intractable bacterial infections, and the constant threat of violence from their own kind. Not many nature documentaries are brave enough to follow a 12 year old lion like Cecil to his slow and painful natural grave. So while it’s an important question whether it is right for a hunter to kill, deliberately, a healthy, adult male lion in a fashion that ensures a painful and lingering death, let us not be blinded to what kind of end awaits such an animal otherwise.

More importantly I’m not sure that one can feel disgusted at the death of this one lion while not protesting the killing of bears in the United States. In California alone there is ahunting quota of 1500 black bears per year. That’s 6 times as many lions as are killed in the whole of Africa each year. The black bear population of California is exactly the same size as the African lion population, yet is deemed to be sustainably harvested at 6 timesthe rate of African lions. Bears are routinely hunted with dogs (yes that is the origin of the term 'hounding’) although some states, including CA in 2012, have banned this practice. 1 in 10 black bears killed by hunters in California are killed with bows and arrows - in 2013 that was around 100 individuals. None of those bears were 'beloved’; had human names, or were tourist attractions. None of their deaths sparked outrage. Black bears are intelligent, magnificent, fierce animals. Bear hunters skin and behead their catch (why else would they hunt?) and thus they furnish the lounges and dens, just as a lion hunter does. A bear killed with an arrow is unlikely to die a clean and polished death. A bear wounded with an arrow even less so. So why are there over 300,000 tweets about Cecil the Lion and none about Californian black bears? The answer is obvious - it’s a viral moral outrage storm, and it obscures the second moral question at stake here: the conservation management of African lions.

The African lion population has declined steeply in recent decades to its present level of somewhere between 23000 and 39000 individuals. The terrible reality is that charismatic apex predators do not flourish anywhere in the world where they co-exist with large, dense human populations. Tigers in India, grizzlies in the US, wolves in Europe, sharks off the coast of eastern Australia, cougars in Florida, none of them will find it easy to survive without vigorous management and protection. Complete quarantining of predators from people is possible only in protected areas (national parks and the like) but such areas will never provide enough habitat for large wild populations to be sustained. Large predators need territory to follow their prey through the seasons and they cannot be contained, short of fencing national parks. Nor can they be domesticated enough to be guaranteed never to kill livestock and even humans. So there must be compromises reached in how these predators live in proximity to human populations outside of national parks.

One reasonably promising model is to develop buffer zones around protected areas in which wildlife can live, if not being strictly protected, and in Africa these often take the form of hunting concessions, Wildlife Management Areas, game controlled areas and so on. These are not empty places, but are full of people as well as wildlife. Buffer zones around national parks are often intensely contested lands. In East Africa they are - at best, for wildlife - home to traditional pastoralists, whose livestock practices (mobile, seasonal grazing at low population densities) have enabled them to co-exist for centuries alongside a rich biota of wild animals. But all too often, land that abuts national parks is needed by farmers whose populations are expanding, and whose land is already poor in financial return. The great conundrum for African governments and their advisors is how to balance these competing needs for resources. In an ideal world, local peoples have both economic use of their land and economic incentives to foster healthy populations of wild animals on that same land. There are only a few ways for that to work and in East Africa it’s usually some combination of pastoralism, tourism, and hunting concessions. For species like lion and elephant, who are dangerous, who kill local people, and are destructive of their livelihoods (eating, respectively, livestock and crops), the incentives need to be particularly strong to offset the costs. That is where hunting licences can play a role. As everyone now knows, the cost to an American tourist of hunting big game in Africa is stupendous. Right now, very little of that tends to flow back into local communities. I’ve seen myself the armoured vehicles and machine-gun toting guards of the Game Controlled Areas around Longido in northern Tanzania. They are leased to Arab hunting companies and in constant conflict with local Maasai pastoralists. But in other parts of Africa, hunting concessions are in fact run by local communities, who benefit substantially from them. And these include those expensive, rare, lion hunting licences. By contrast, in Kenya, where trophy hunting was banned in 1977, and traditional pastoralism largely dismantled by privatisation of common lands, national parks are surrounded, cheek by jowl, with farms growing vegetables and flowers for the European market. And Kenyan wildlife populations have declined by up to 70% since then.

The liberal conscience may revolt. Isn’t trophy hunting the crudest replay of imperial violence? Aren’t we thrown back to Teddy Roosevelt, killing hundreds of creatures in a rampage around southern Africa at the turn of the century? Isn’t it shameful to see an American toting a dead leopard with a big smile on his face?

Maybe. But surely the generous response is to think not only of the tourists who 'loved’ a lion; and of the lion himself; but also to think of the black bears of California, and the struggling pastoralist communities of East Africa: of all the living beings implicated in this web of global transactions, before we jump to moral outrage about this one death.
 
Tigers don't live in Africa!? How will I ever know which one will win in a fight now!? :rolleyes:

I actually was reading a thread on a well known shooting website and someone actually made a comment saying Cecil was essentially, "a domesticated" animal. I wonder how domesticated he would be if you were to step down from your safari truck and try to pet him.
 
OK Mr. Quail. Here are some great ideas even some great sources to start with. Do you want to tell this story or heap on the story that is being sewed right now.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,632
Messages
1,131,576
Members
92,700
Latest member
dkdagasv388
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top