Discussion in 'Articles' started by NamStay, Jun 3, 2019.
A very well written, and reasoned, letter. I only hope it's contents will be taken seriously - and without prejudice or mockery - by the "other" side.
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......
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!!"
Yup one can always hope.......
Just thinking, but IF trophy hunting is ever driven to the wall, then the only option operators have left to compensate, is to jack up the daily rates sky-high for photographic and "eco" tourists!! With their wallets hit hard - then they'll scream!!
@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. .....
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.
On the game ranches as soon as people can't pay their bills etc....then the animals will be killed meat sold ....then back to cattle or sheep or whatever else can go on......and as you say in the govnt hunting areas that are usually buffer zones for Nat parks the wildlife will be replaced by domestic live stock and agriculture. .....trees and Bush will vanish......so total mess...but the antis will be happy as they will have stopped hunting and fk the overall cost to wildlife and the ecosystems that have vanished. ......
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.
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?
Ehmmm.... I am not familiar with Botswana situation. There are several factors that I know, and many other factors that I do not know.
Although I am not sure what "Belly up" means, and for what? And for what species? Or for hunting in general? Or for wildlife numbers in biotswana?
- Hunting banned on Govt land, but allowed on private ranches. General not-pro-hunting politics. Till now.
- As per some facts, given from recent titles I have read: ("Ivory", by Keith Somerville, and "Elephant" by C. Boddington")
it seams that Botswana never had big problem of poaching . Poaching there is, ( or "was" historically, but never on level of other countries).
The numbers given in book "Ivory" are staggering for some countries, especially East African, and then west African as well. If the question is, how poached elephants were counted - and presented, there were some records, from exported ivory tonnage from country to country, which does not match to number of licenses issued, or culling records, and then it covers also for smuggled and locally poached ivory. But Botswana never even close to that.
In my view, with well regulated hunting, and pro hunting politics, many things would get to better situation... Considering the size of country of Botswana, and relatively small population census (2 million)- they have huge hunting (and game farming) potential, very similar to Namibia.
O, BTW - when you dont hunt elephants they are prolific: 5% per year. Do the math on 150.000 estimated for Botswana.
But please, note, on this point I am only sharing my theoretical views. I have never been in Botswana. There are many more knowledgeable people on the forum, to comment or correct me if I am wrong.
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.
I really believe that if the average person takes the time to understand the issues, they will come to agree the the issue is not hunting or even frankly poaching, but habitat loss. If hunting is not allowed in rural areas, then the land will be used for agricultural purposes to provide for booming populations. And once land is used for agriculture, wildlife will have no place. Grazers compete with livestock for drought ravaged grasses while browsers will eat many types of crops. Predators and large mammals will be the first to go because humans simply cannot co-exist with these animals without some compelling reason to do so.
This won't convince the antis, but it will still convince the silent majority. What SCI, DSC and others need to do however, apart from getting this message out there, is to counter the message of those who would enact legislation banning the import of lawfully taken and in many cases CITES authorized hunting trophies, and of groups such as PETA and HSUS who use these issues simply as a nexus for fundraising.
Off subject slightly, but What is completely mind boggling to understand is how PETA can raise $54M in donations, when there are 150M children who are malnourished or growth stunted in the world, a great majority in Africa. Throw in HSUS and its fundraising, and our message as international hunters should be what benefits we are providing through community benefits, nutrition and meat contributions to those 150M kids while the antis contribute nothing. When the masses finally get the message of the lives of children should matter more, that is when the masses will have an ah-ha moment that maybe hunting is a good thing, even if they don’t do it themselves. This is a message that I think hunters underestimate. We won’t convert the anti’s, but we can influence the uncommitted.
Separate names with a comma.