I'm not, as I'm well aware of it's likely reception. But my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, inasmuch as the saying too: "hope springs eternal!!"I wouldn't hold your breath.... There are plenty of other well written letters, articles etc by very knowledgeable people that haven't made any difference or been taken seriously by the " other" side , unfortunately so for the wildlife and people who have to live side by side with these animals......
Thanks! I appreciate your post - a little more is added to my ken of knowledge on the subject. But as @mark-hunter replied to my same post in "Trophy hunting leading to climate change", he stated operators and game ranchers will just turn to other industry-like endeavours - as like eco tours in Kenya which have been operating there for years. But, this will lead to long term disaster for the bio diversity in the area - as all wildlife outside Nat Parks will be eradicated - as just as what happened to the white rhino in Kenya.@Timbo thereis only a small percentage of the population that can afford the very very high rates at the top end photo places and so they are covered with the lodges etc that already go after that market....but even some of the top end ones in S.A. use hunting to make their profit so the photo ones can enjoy themselves. ....one such reserve there got lots of shit when the tree huggers found out that the reserve had applied for hunting quota. ....and as has been said most hunting govnt areas aren't suitable for photo people who have to see animals on a regular basis or aren't happy.....and as in the okavango the photo ones bought out the hunting operators as lots to see there unlike the dry areas that most photo tourists would be demanding a refund or to be taken elsewhere asap. .....
Then if as you state that the process can be reversed, then why did it all go belly up in Botswana during the (recently ceased) 5yr moratorium on hunting?@Timbo:
Not necessarily, the process can be reversible (at least untill is not too late):
For example, wildlife numbers in south africa after world war 2, totally decimated, to general census of 500.000 animals, country wide.
When politics changed, and supported game ranching, the numbers and biodiversity flourished 40 times till today, to estimated 20.000.000 heads off wild animals. I did mentioned this in some other thread (on sustainable RSA practices) recently.
Wild animals are very prolific. Given the chance, and with predators under control, and poachers out of way.
Some years ago I hunted the mKuze (various spellings) park, which is divided into two sections - one for photo safaris and the other for hunting. The managers do all they can to avoid one seeing the other - the hunting area is across a river, the roads are unpaved and signed "no entry" etc. All this is done to avoid upsetting those on photo safaris. It is the hunting, though, which makes the entire enterprise viable.@Timbo thereis only a small percentage of the population that can afford the very very high rates at the top end photo places and so they are covered with the lodges etc that already go after that market....but even some of the top end ones in S.A. use hunting to make their profit so the photo ones can enjoy themselves. ....one such reserve there got lots of shit when the tree huggers found out that the reserve had applied for hunting quota. ....and as has been said most hunting govnt areas aren't suitable for photo people who have to see animals on a regular basis or aren't happy.....and as in the okavango the photo ones bought out the hunting operators as lots to see there unlike the dry areas that most photo tourists would be demanding a refund or to be taken elsewhere asap. .....