Massive Noah’s Ark Project Attracts Critics

Hoas

AH fanatic
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
952
Reaction score
2,532
Media
603
Articles
276
There'l always be critics and people who's views are clouded by emotion. Article below.



As I write this, animals are being moved in big numbers from a wildlife conservancy in Zimbabwe to a national park in Mozambique in a project to restock wildlife that was annihilated during the Mozambique civil war.


The plan is to move 6,000 animals during the coming three years – and in the coming eight weeks alone the project will move 50 elephants, 100 giraffe, 900 impala, 300 wildebeest, 50 kudu, 200 zebra, buffalo and eland.

Surely this is good news? I certainly think so. But of course, nothing is as simple as it seems, and there are many animal rights activists who seem against the move. You see, these animals are being moved from a trophy hunting conservancy in Zimbabwe – and that fact alone creates distraction and heaps of angry criticism. Additional animals will be sourced from reserves in South Africa and Mozambique.


2-5.jpg



Rather than spend the few moments I have with you on recapping the various arguments for and against trophy hunting, I will refer you to this recent excellent (and very long) story in the Guardian, which gives a good overview of the ups and downs of trophy hunting in Africa as a conservation tool, and of the views of animal rights activists opposing this project.

These issues are complex, and right now I wish to provide you with the basic facts of this project so that you can make up your own mind about its value as a conservation exercise.

The project

Project ‘Re-wild’, by Peace Parks Foundation, is one of the largest wildlife relocation projects in southern Africa. Commencing in June 2017, the project will see 6,000 animals moved from the Sango Wildlife Conservancy in the Savé Valley Conservancy of southeastern Zimbabwe, to their new home in Zinave National Park in Mozambique (a 600km journey).

The goal is to help develop Zinave into a tourist destination, as it is situated close to the Vilanculos-Bazaruto Archipelago, a popular coastal holiday area.

Zinave falls within the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA), an international conservation project driven by the governments of Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South Africa. The animals have been donated by Sango, and the translocation costs are being funded by Peace Parks Foundation.

Additional animals will be moved to Zinave from South Africa and Mozambique. In October 2016, seven elephants were successfully relocated to Zinave from Maremani Nature Reserve in South Africa – a 1,500km journey. Maremani also permits controlled hunting.


Map-Zim-SA-Moz.jpg



The donor

Sango Wildlife Conservancy in the Savé Valley Conservancy of Zimbabwe relies on trophy hunting to pay 60% its overheads, with owner Wilfried Pabst funding the majority of the remaining requirements. Trophy hunters remove about 200 animals per year of the 200,000 animals estimated to live on Sango – a 0,1% offtake.

Pabst purchased Sango in 1993 when it was a cattle ranch, and converted the area into a sustainable wildlife conservancy.

Says Pabst: “In remote places and countries with a weak tourism industry and a high unemployment rate, it is very difficult – or almost impossible – to run a conservancy like Sango without income from sustainable utilisation”. He adds, “Nothing shows our ecological success more than our gift of over 6,000 animals to re-establish the Zinave National Park in Mozambique”.

Sango does attract small numbers of photographic tourists, but not enough to fund the running costs.


1-2.jpg



The recipient

The 408,000 ha Zinave National Park in Mozambique is about 20% the size of South Africa’s Kruger National Park. The park is a transition zone between wet and dry tropical areas, boasts excellent wildlife habitat and used to support a wide diversity of species.

Initially a hunting reserve, Zinave was converted to a national park in 1972, but subsequently lost most of its wildlife during the 1980-1992 civil war, when bush meat was often the only source of protein for soldiers on both sides of the war.


Summary

Thousands of animals will be moved from one of a few trophy hunting conservation success stories to a national park that needs help. That, in my view, is a good thing.

Yes, I am concerned about Mozambique’s appalling track record in conservation, with the magnificent Niassa National Reserve losing 70% of its elephants over the past four years, and consistent reports of systemic corruption that fuels the illegal wildlife trade, hardwood logging and mining. But I also believe in celebrating the success stories on merit.

The animal rights activists will emphasise that the act of hunting is morally bankrupt – which wins them a direct line to your feelings. Hunters will continue to pretend that the few shining lights in their heavily criticised industry are in fact representative of the entire industry. Both sides will claim to have facts to support their viewpoints.

It’s up to you to decide about this specific project. Keep the passion.



Source: https://africageographic.com/blog/massive-noahs-ark-project-attracts-critics/
 
There'l always be critics and people who's views are clouded by emotion. Article below.

Although I enjoyed this article, and learning about the game transfer..........the author's conclusions simply show his bias. "Hunters will continue to pretend......................." that, basically, their shining successes are the exception. Rubbish. These "unusual successes" for hunting include the USA, where game is doing well, Canada, Argentina, Asia, Eastern Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Even in Africa, despite the challenges, much game would be gone without the hunter. And lastly, as this article and the "Cecil" article mention but fail to emphasize, is that in both areas ............Rwanda and Mozambique...............game is being transplanted from areas in which it is hunted, to National Parks (Zinave and Akagera) where it is extinct. The hunted, and protected areas, have too much game. The national parks mentioned are nearly devoid of game. Enough said..............................Flatwater Bill

As I write this, animals are being moved in big numbers from a wildlife conservancy in Zimbabwe to a national park in Mozambique in a project to restock wildlife that was annihilated during the Mozambique civil war.


The plan is to move 6,000 animals during the coming three years – and in the coming eight weeks alone the project will move 50 elephants, 100 giraffe, 900 impala, 300 wildebeest, 50 kudu, 200 zebra, buffalo and eland.

Surely this is good news? I certainly think so. But of course, nothing is as simple as it seems, and there are many animal rights activists who seem against the move. You see, these animals are being moved from a trophy hunting conservancy in Zimbabwe – and that fact alone creates distraction and heaps of angry criticism. Additional animals will be sourced from reserves in South Africa and Mozambique.


View attachment 197514


Rather than spend the few moments I have with you on recapping the various arguments for and against trophy hunting, I will refer you to this recent excellent (and very long) story in the Guardian, which gives a good overview of the ups and downs of trophy hunting in Africa as a conservation tool, and of the views of animal rights activists opposing this project.

These issues are complex, and right now I wish to provide you with the basic facts of this project so that you can make up your own mind about its value as a conservation exercise.

The project

Project ‘Re-wild’, by Peace Parks Foundation, is one of the largest wildlife relocation projects in southern Africa. Commencing in June 2017, the project will see 6,000 animals moved from the Sango Wildlife Conservancy in the Savé Valley Conservancy of southeastern Zimbabwe, to their new home in Zinave National Park in Mozambique (a 600km journey).

The goal is to help develop Zinave into a tourist destination, as it is situated close to the Vilanculos-Bazaruto Archipelago, a popular coastal holiday area.

Zinave falls within the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA), an international conservation project driven by the governments of Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South Africa. The animals have been donated by Sango, and the translocation costs are being funded by Peace Parks Foundation.

Additional animals will be moved to Zinave from South Africa and Mozambique. In October 2016, seven elephants were successfully relocated to Zinave from Maremani Nature Reserve in South Africa – a 1,500km journey. Maremani also permits controlled hunting.


View attachment 197515


The donor

Sango Wildlife Conservancy in the Savé Valley Conservancy of Zimbabwe relies on trophy hunting to pay 60% its overheads, with owner Wilfried Pabst funding the majority of the remaining requirements. Trophy hunters remove about 200 animals per year of the 200,000 animals estimated to live on Sango – a 0,1% offtake.

Pabst purchased Sango in 1993 when it was a cattle ranch, and converted the area into a sustainable wildlife conservancy.

Says Pabst: “In remote places and countries with a weak tourism industry and a high unemployment rate, it is very difficult – or almost impossible – to run a conservancy like Sango without income from sustainable utilisation”. He adds, “Nothing shows our ecological success more than our gift of over 6,000 animals to re-establish the Zinave National Park in Mozambique”.

Sango does attract small numbers of photographic tourists, but not enough to fund the running costs.


View attachment 197516


The recipient

The 408,000 ha Zinave National Park in Mozambique is about 20% the size of South Africa’s Kruger National Park. The park is a transition zone between wet and dry tropical areas, boasts excellent wildlife habitat and used to support a wide diversity of species.

Initially a hunting reserve, Zinave was converted to a national park in 1972, but subsequently lost most of its wildlife during the 1980-1992 civil war, when bush meat was often the only source of protein for soldiers on both sides of the war.


Summary

Thousands of animals will be moved from one of a few trophy hunting conservation success stories to a national park that needs help. That, in my view, is a good thing.

Yes, I am concerned about Mozambique’s appalling track record in conservation, with the magnificent Niassa National Reserve losing 70% of its elephants over the past four years, and consistent reports of systemic corruption that fuels the illegal wildlife trade, hardwood logging and mining. But I also believe in celebrating the success stories on merit.

The animal rights activists will emphasise that the act of hunting is morally bankrupt – which wins them a direct line to your feelings. Hunters will continue to pretend that the few shining lights in their heavily criticised industry are in fact representative of the entire industry. Both sides will claim to have facts to support their viewpoints.

It’s up to you to decide about this specific project. Keep the passion.



Source: https://africageographic.com/blog/massive-noahs-ark-project-attracts-critics/
There'l always be critics and people who's views are clouded by emotion. Article below.



As I write this, animals are being moved in big numbers from a wildlife conservancy in Zimbabwe to a national park in Mozambique in a project to restock wildlife that was annihilated during the Mozambique civil war.


The plan is to move 6,000 animals during the coming three years – and in the coming eight weeks alone the project will move 50 elephants, 100 giraffe, 900 impala, 300 wildebeest, 50 kudu, 200 zebra, buffalo and eland.

Surely this is good news? I certainly think so. But of course, nothing is as simple as it seems, and there are many animal rights activists who seem against the move. You see, these animals are being moved from a trophy hunting conservancy in Zimbabwe – and that fact alone creates distraction and heaps of angry criticism. Additional animals will be sourced from reserves in South Africa and Mozambique.


View attachment 197514


Rather than spend the few moments I have with you on recapping the various arguments for and against trophy hunting, I will refer you to this recent excellent (and very long) story in the Guardian, which gives a good overview of the ups and downs of trophy hunting in Africa as a conservation tool, and of the views of animal rights activists opposing this project.

These issues are complex, and right now I wish to provide you with the basic facts of this project so that you can make up your own mind about its value as a conservation exercise.

The project

Project ‘Re-wild’, by Peace Parks Foundation, is one of the largest wildlife relocation projects in southern Africa. Commencing in June 2017, the project will see 6,000 animals moved from the Sango Wildlife Conservancy in the Savé Valley Conservancy of southeastern Zimbabwe, to their new home in Zinave National Park in Mozambique (a 600km journey).

The goal is to help develop Zinave into a tourist destination, as it is situated close to the Vilanculos-Bazaruto Archipelago, a popular coastal holiday area.

Zinave falls within the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA), an international conservation project driven by the governments of Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South Africa. The animals have been donated by Sango, and the translocation costs are being funded by Peace Parks Foundation.

Additional animals will be moved to Zinave from South Africa and Mozambique. In October 2016, seven elephants were successfully relocated to Zinave from Maremani Nature Reserve in South Africa – a 1,500km journey. Maremani also permits controlled hunting.


View attachment 197515


The donor

Sango Wildlife Conservancy in the Savé Valley Conservancy of Zimbabwe relies on trophy hunting to pay 60% its overheads, with owner Wilfried Pabst funding the majority of the remaining requirements. Trophy hunters remove about 200 animals per year of the 200,000 animals estimated to live on Sango – a 0,1% offtake.

Pabst purchased Sango in 1993 when it was a cattle ranch, and converted the area into a sustainable wildlife conservancy.

Says Pabst: “In remote places and countries with a weak tourism industry and a high unemployment rate, it is very difficult – or almost impossible – to run a conservancy like Sango without income from sustainable utilisation”. He adds, “Nothing shows our ecological success more than our gift of over 6,000 animals to re-establish the Zinave National Park in Mozambique”.

Sango does attract small numbers of photographic tourists, but not enough to fund the running costs.


View attachment 197516


The recipient

The 408,000 ha Zinave National Park in Mozambique is about 20% the size of South Africa’s Kruger National Park. The park is a transition zone between wet and dry tropical areas, boasts excellent wildlife habitat and used to support a wide diversity of species.

Initially a hunting reserve, Zinave was converted to a national park in 1972, but subsequently lost most of its wildlife during the 1980-1992 civil war, when bush meat was often the only source of protein for soldiers on both sides of the war.


Summary

Thousands of animals will be moved from one of a few trophy hunting conservation success stories to a national park that needs help. That, in my view, is a good thing.

Yes, I am concerned about Mozambique’s appalling track record in conservation, with the magnificent Niassa National Reserve losing 70% of its elephants over the past four years, and consistent reports of systemic corruption that fuels the illegal wildlife trade, hardwood logging and mining. But I also believe in celebrating the success stories on merit.

The animal rights activists will emphasise that the act of hunting is morally bankrupt – which wins them a direct line to your feelings. Hunters will continue to pretend that the few shining lights in their heavily criticised industry are in fact representative of the entire industry. Both sides will claim to have facts to support their viewpoints.

It’s up to you to decide about this specific project. Keep the passion.



Source: https://africageographic.com/blog/massive-noahs-ark-project-attracts-critics/
 
I didn't want my reply to be in yellow, but couldnt stop it........sorry..................FWB
 
im for any thing and every thing that benefits wild life and the hunting family that also benefits wild life.
 
Seems like a great idea. The antis will never get it. Thier arrogance is what bewilders me the most. People are starving this will help. They aren't concerned about the starving children.
 
I am so confused by this. What is the outrage about exactly?
 
They are taking animals from a no hunting park to reintroduce to an area that will use hunting to help sustain that area.
 
Saul, good question. Anytime hunting benefits wildlife, antis are opposed. The author states that, in effect, hunters rarely help wildlife. My point is, there would often be no wildlife without hunters. In two of the recent posts in the "articles category" wildlife is being taken from an area in which it is hunted, and being introduced into National Parks. The hunted areas have an over abundance of game, whereas both listed National Parks are devoid of game. That says it all...........FWB
 
Saul, good question. Anytime hunting benefits wildlife, antis are opposed. The author states that, in effect, hunters rarely help wildlife. My point is, there would often be no wildlife without hunters. In two of the recent posts in the "articles category" wildlife is being taken from an area in which it is hunted, and being introduced into National Parks. The hunted areas have an over abundance of game, whereas both listed National Parks are devoid of game. That says it all...........FWB
Exactly. If wildlife doesn't have a monetary value due to hunting, the value it possesses is exactly how many meals its meat brings to the table or how much it costs a local farmer. There is an economy solely from the value hunters place on the game and the adventure it brings. I don't know how many camera clickers it takes to equal a daily fee + trophy fee + tip but I'm assuming it is exponential. If you truly care about a species or ecosystem like most anti's claim, you should be fully behind whatever activity leads it's long term success.
 
It is a no-brainer. Often parks and nature areas gets overstocked and if there is areas to relocate to, it is good for diversity and gene pools. However, I hope and pray that they have anti-poaching in place, else we will hear in 10 years time that there nothing left.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,983
Messages
1,142,210
Members
93,334
Latest member
MartyBelai
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Cwoody wrote on Woodcarver's profile.
Shot me email if Beretta 28 ga DU is available
Thank you
Coltwoody@me.com
Pancho wrote on Safari Dave's profile.
Enjoyed reading your post again. Believe this is the 3rd time. I am scheduled to hunt w/ Legadema in Sep. Really looking forward to it.
check out our Buff hunt deal!
Because of some clients having to move their dates I have 2 prime time slots open if anyone is interested to do a hunt
5-15 May
or 5-15 June is open!
shoot me a message for a good deal!
dogcat1 wrote on skydiver386's profile.
I would be interested in it if you pass. Please send me the info on the gun shop if you do not buy it. I have the needed ammo and brass.
Thanks,
Ross
 
Top