So you want to shoot an African elephant or leopard and import it into the US...

[DavidBrown]

I'm interested to know whether in the US hunting groups own and manage land, and whether this involves predator "management". One of the reasons that British wildlife enthusiasts take such a sceptical view of sports hunters is the past and present activities of gamekeepers, which led to the near extermination of many raptors in the 19th centuries.

There are many wetlands that have been preserved and/or recreated and expanded because of a group called Ducks Unlimited. This is a group of duck hunters essentially, but also an important conservation group: Wetlands, Conservation, Waterfowl, Duck Hunting - World Leader in Wetlands Conservation - Ducks Unlimited

I don't hunt, but I do think that they do very important conservation work.

Raptors are strictly protected in the US. Golden and bald eagles are specially protected by federal law, but all raptor and native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other laws.

 

[IanRRobinson]

There are many wetlands that have been preserved and/or recreated and expanded because of a group called Ducks Unlimited. This is a group of duck hunters essentially, but also an important conservation group: Wetlands, Conservation, Waterfowl, Duck Hunting - World Leader in Wetlands Conservation - Ducks Unlimited

I don't hunt, but I do think that they do very important conservation work.

Raptors are strictly protected in the US. Golden and bald eagles are specially protected by federal law, but all raptor and native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other laws.

Thanks, David. Interesting stuff.

DU seem to have a much more intelligent understanding of predator-prey dynamics than many hunting lobbies here. To be fair, wildfowlers here have done a lot of good work in conservation. Peter Scott's interest in waterfowl started by shooting them!

 

[Arizona Docent]

A couple weeks ago I had dinner with two field biologists and conservationists - one a gal with extensive experience in Arizona and one a guy who is a world famous cat biologist and has done studies all over the planet. He brought up an interesting dilemma along these lines about jaguars in Mexico (where he currently has a research project).

He says it is currently illegal to import a jaguar trophy into the United States - so American hunters have no interest. If a jaguar becomes a cattle killer (which a small percentage do), it is a dead jaguar. The Mexican rancher will kill it and leave the carcass to rot. Or if it is not immediately shot, it will soon die on its own because cats that turn to killing livestock are almost always old or injured animals. If an American hunter from Safari Club Intl (headquartered here in Tucson) were allowed to import it, he would pay $200,000 for the right to shoot the problem animal. That is a lot of money that could go to help the local people and go to monitoring and protecting Mexican wildlife. The cat is dead either way. Under the current system, it is dead with no one benefitting. Under the trophy permit scenario, it would provide $200K income to needed sources.

Although none of the three of us at the dinner would ever become hunters ourselves, we all agreed that the merits of allowing it in situations like this seem obvious. When I questioned him, my biologist friend says he is certain they could ensure that only the "problem" cat was killed.

 

[dublinlion]

If an American hunter from Safari Club Intl (headquartered here in Tucson) were allowed to import it, he would pay $200,000 for the right to shoot the problem animal. .

Pretty sure a fine citizen like that would happily shoot the jaguar or any other living creature without paying a cent, if he could get away with it. I can just imagine what he spends his weekends doing when no ones watching.
Makes me lose faith in human nature.

However, I do see the point you are making and I suppose its better to get his blood money for nature conservation, rather than let him blaze away heroicly for free.

 

[carlos77]

Jaguar trophy hunting in Mexico ? At this moment it is far too problematic. As a protected species, jaguars have increased. To allow commercial hunting, would open a black market again on the pelts. Who would enforce this ? The federal government or the state offices. Corruption in the state enviromental offices in Mexico is legendary and widespread. Who would be there to see that only the "correct" jaguars are killed ? A management plan would be complicated to carry out. It could be made by the federal government maybe Profepa, but to implent it at the states offices with jaguar populations would bring in many levels open to bribery and theft. Again, as has been said the problem is management. The seri indians manage desert bighorn sheep hunting on isla tiburon in baja california. Half of the proceeds go to the seri indians, who are the only guides permitted. The program is very sucessfull on the sponshership of the seris who use carefully manage the program with assitance from biologists from the Universidad Nacional de Mexico and SEMARNAT, the federal enviromental office. When bighorn sheep hunting was in the hands of the baja california state office corruption was constant and the program was a failure. The seri indian bighorn project is an example of good wildlife management but it is very difficult to replicate. To allow hunting of a protected species you would need strong local groups who would manage this carefully. A very widespread protected species would require cooperation with many different state agencies and in Mexico it is too risky. I hate to have to write this, but Mexico is not the U.S. or England where the laws are enforced equally or fairly.
I also wonder if many countries in Africa have the same problems as mexico in the aplication of wildlife regulations.

 

[Monty]

Exactly!

No matter what you say about the money going back to conservation - I DONT UNDERSTAND IT! What is the joy in killing a magnificent wild animal?
I really don´t get it. And I probably never will, because I am not able to talk to these people without hurting them physically.
I understand when local people kill an antelope for meat but why would an American want to kill an Elephant?

I have spent many days waking through forests, over mountains hunting Sambar deer in Australia. I have never had a bad days hunting them and am yet to fire a shot at a Sambar. When I eventually do shoot one I will take photos and probably get it mounted to have a permanent memento of the occasion. Non hunters can not understand hunting is not about killing, and we kill to have hunted not hunt to kill.

I have also read incredible stories about hunting in Africa. One I remember they stalked over 400 elephants to within several metres over weeks, before they found the one they were after. Doing that would be one of the best wildlife experiences you could have, being so close to such an amazing and dangerous animal. There is no way you could do it not hunting as the likelihood of being attacked is very high and that person was very lucky he did not have to shoot an elephant in self defence.If that person just wanted to kill an Elephant he would have shot the first his permit allowed.

Another hunter after Cape Buffalo in Africa was stalking through thick scrub trying to get a shot at a Cape Buffalo, when the herd stampeded towards them. As a Buffalo charged past at very close range a Lion ran right past them from behind and jumped on it. The whole pride then appeared from nearby and joined in the fight and killed the buffalo within a couple of metres from the hunters. After they had backed out they realized they were that close they were covered in blood splatter from the Buffalo. They had been standing in the middle of a pride of lions who were hunting the same buffalo as them. The Lions had probably used the humans to distract the Buffalo.

It is experiences like these and the chance of it happening that makes people want to hunt in Africa, and I would do it if I could afford it. The kill though is the end of the experience and would be the bit I would enjoy the least. I would probably keep saying each animal is not the one I want though and pass up on shots as I would not want it to be over. Once you kill the animal the hunt is over.

 

[Stefka]

Monty, that was a great answer, one really could get an insight into hunter´s mind.

However, it won´t change my opinion. Wildlife watching is possible without killing and I still think that if you really love the animal, you won´t kill it.

But thank you for your answer, it was really interesting reading.

 

[IanRRobinson]

Monty, that was a great answer, one really could get an insight into hunter´s mind.

However, it won´t change my opinion. Wildlife watching is possible without killing and I still think that if you really love the animal, you won´t kill it.

But thank you for your answer, it was really interesting reading.

Stefka and dublinlion, I don't know if it's so obvious in the Republic, but one reason why I have such a lacklustre view of sports hunting is the experience of walking round old houses filled with faded trophies.

I've never been able to look at some faded tiger, nearly white with over exposure to artificial light, without thinking that the hunter would have achieved more of lasting value by taking a photo.

 

[Stefka]

I've never been able to look at some faded tiger, nearly white with over exposure to artificial light, without thinking that the hunter would have achieved more of lasting value by taking a photo.

I totally agree. I´ve visited Museum of Natural History few weeks ago, just to get some more info for one of my assignments. It almost made me sick, it´s so unnatural... Since that visit, if am writing about an animal not present in Dublin Zoo, Bray Sea Life centre etc., I only use photos and videos of that species as a source. (And I am also more interested in animal behavior than the visual aspects.)

 

[CGSwans]

probably used the humans to distract the Buffalo.

It is experiences like these and the chance of it happening that makes people want to hunt in Africa, and I would do it if I could afford it. The kill though is the end of the experience and would be the bit I would enjoy the least. I would probably keep saying each animal is not the one I want though and pass up on shots as I would not want it to be over. Once you kill the animal the hunt is over.

As Stefka says, you can do all of the things you described without the kill. In fact I'm willing to state with reasonable certainty that more money flows into conservation in Africa through people shooting with cameras than with guns. Why do you need the kill at all?

 

[Monty]

As Stefka says, you can do all of the things you described without the kill. In fact I'm willing to state with reasonable certainty that more money flows into conservation in Africa through people shooting with cameras than with guns. Why do you need the kill at all?

Yes, but then I would be a bush walker. Bush walkers walk from one point to another with no interaction with the environment. I used to do it an after a while found it boring as the usual goal was the next nights camp.

If Africa tourists are often attacked and killed when an inexperienced guide fires a warning shot much to late and have no time to reload before the Elephant begins trampling them.

Tourists with cameras visit the national parks such as Kruger and take their photos there. they don't usually go to other places and especially not private properties to take photos. They spend their money on accommodation, food and national park tours and very little elsewhere. Almost none of their money goes towards habitat protection.

 

[Monty]

Just looking for some more info and found these comments on incomes of hunting compared to photography from people in Africa..

Prof van der Hooven of the University of Pretoria (Game farms for sale South Africa - GAMEFARMNET) also in Afrikaans(sorry) also did studies. In 2001 the only national park where the utilization of game was allowed was in the Pilansberg game reserve in North West Province(I say was, not sure if it is still allowed). His research has shown that one foreign trophy hunter spends the same amount of money on a hunt as 2000 day visitors.

Now the areas where most game farms are situated in South Africa is usually areas where crop farming can not take place. These areas where traditionally cattle farming areas. Now cattle farming is not very labor intensive. My cousin owns a cattle farm in Limpopo province. His labor consists of himself and 3 laborers.

The farm is about 3000 hectares.If this was an intensive game(hunting) farm he would need at least double the amount of people.

Lastly and I have to add this: There is more game in South Africa on game farms than in all the nature conservation areas.

Another comment from Zambia

A little statistic for you - the wildlife department ZAWA here recently announced that incomes from both consumptive and non consumptive were parallel, although it was indicated that photographic would probably tip the scales next year.

However this would be due to improved infrastructure within our Parks. Note to date this tourism does not fund or have any social responsibility to rural communities as they have been alienated from these protected areas.

Therefore we hunters are utilising marginal communal lands that are not really desirable to suit other models.

If my little project in the Kafue could derive better incomes from non consumptive models then I am all ears.

Another South African comment.

Kenya is a Bad example and a good example.Kenya stopped hunting and their game numbers outside of the parks fell to almost 0. In comparison to Tanzania their game numbers have increased due to a hunting demand. So much so Kenya is going to and has If im not mistaken re-opened hunting.

We are talking more than just money here, we are talking about the conservation of animals OUTSIDE of the parks.Animals running on tribal land competing with cattle.Why should the tribes tolerate animals and Lions that compete with and kill their cattle?
Keeping in mind that any self respecting hunter/Safari operater will only target Mature animals mostly in or past their prime.
The herd or pride in general is not targeted. In most areas protected,Anti-poaching squads Protected by the chief in areas as he gets some money if they get somthing in his area etc.

And as for the money thats generated I can tell you the local parks takes a fair amount to run their parks and Im sure to put in their pockets ?? but as mentioned its better in the official hands than in The US/Europe etc B.M.O. a hunting ban.This will just start a poaching scurge for the asian lion bone trade.

Even if that Money is going to a pocket there is still a measure of "Worth" on the animal which in itself will protect it.

Its more than a GDP its giving them worth and that protects them.

In SAfrica Hunting tourism by far brings in more $$ than Photographic safaris and The game farm industry is 60-80% bigger in game/square miles than the National parks

Organized Hunting with strict Quotas is the only way you will save the lion and all other sustainable species.

 

[Stefka]

Yes, but then I would be a bush walker. Bush walkers walk from one point to another with no interaction with the environment. I used to do it an after a while found it boring as the usual goal was the next nights camp.

If Africa tourists are often attacked and killed when an inexperienced guide fires a warning shot much to late and have no time to reload before the Elephant begins trampling them.

Tourists with cameras visit the national parks such as Kruger and take their photos there. they don't usually go to other places and especially not private properties to take photos. They spend their money on accommodation, food and national park tours and very little elsewhere. Almost none of their money goes towards habitat protection.

Oh my, this thread is gonna get ugly...

First of all, you didn´t really answered CGSwans´s question: "Why do you need the kill at all?"

You are basically saying that, as a hunter, you can get much better wildlife experience than a "bush walker". And I don´t really understand it. I mean, if you feel that you are too experienced to go on a regular guided safari tour, then don´t. Use your expertise, do all the thing you normally do (tracking and watching one herd for a long time) and enjoy the wildlife. Just don´t kill it on the end. If you say that you love the wildlife watching, then that should be the joy, not the kill. Just don´t tell me that you hunt the animals because safari tours are boring...

And then there are all these "money goes back to conservation" excuses. C´mon, how many times did we hear that... You can´t possibly say that you kill the animal because you want to support the conservation... You can donate the money without killing, you know?

And finally - I didn´t really get that "tourists are getting killed because they have unexperienced guides" thing. What is your point?
You´re walking through a territory full of dangerous animals. And that involves some risks. And you must be aware of these risks. Whether you are willing to take that risk or not, that´s up to you. But you can´t possibly think that watching a pride of lions or herd of elephants up close is completely safe and nothing can happened to you. Every tourist must be aware of that.
Most of the people won´t probably agree with me on this one, but here´s how I see it: When I read about a tourist attacked by a lion and that the lion was shot during the incident, I feel sorry for the lion! He was attacking an intruder on HIS territory! My condolences go to the families of the victims, but at the same time - the tourist willingly took that risk!

End of story

 

[DavidBrown]

Yes, but then I would be a bush walker. Bush walkers walk from one point to another with no interaction with the environment. I used to do it an after a while found it boring as the usual goal was the next nights camp.

If Africa tourists are often attacked and killed when an inexperienced guide fires a warning shot much to late and have no time to reload before the Elephant begins trampling them.

Tourists with cameras visit the national parks such as Kruger and take their photos there. they don't usually go to other places and especially not private properties to take photos. They spend their money on accommodation, food and national park tours and very little elsewhere. Almost none of their money goes towards habitat protection.

Sorry Monty, but this is completely wrong. In Zambia bushwalking safaris are a major industry. If people were getting killed then the industry would collapse. Tourism (non-hunting) is one of the major industries in many of the African countries with large wildlife populations (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Botswana. etc.). The vast amount of the wildlife conservation funding for these countries comes from non-hunting tourism income.

 

[mark77]

Sorry Monty, but this is completely wrong. In Zambia bushwalking safaris are a major industry. If people were getting killed then the industry would collapse. Tourism (non-hunting) is one of the major industries in many of the African countries with large wildlife populations (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Botswana. etc.). The vast amount of the wildlife conservation funding for these countries comes from non-hunting tourism income.

Bush walking safaris for tourists in Zambia require incredibly small areas of a vast country. Most tourists who visit Zambia rarely wish to travel far from Vic Falls. There is a small national park there and the many walking safaris that take place ticks most peoples box as to being on safari in Africa. You can see the rhino, some heavily inbred giraffe and groups of zebra, buffalo and antelope. Even the well known huge national parks of Kafue, Luangwa valley are visited by a very small percentage of tourists because they are too far to travel, dont have adequate accomodation, roads etc.. In a few hundred hectares you can accomodate most tourists. The wildlife authority were planning such a small park near Lusaka between the airport and the city for such reasons.


Many of the national parks in Zambia are not managed/ regulated and populations of animals that could be there are very small due to heavy exploitation.

Game management areas cover more than twice the land as national parks.

I dont enjoy the idea of shooting and have no desire to. However I can see and have seen the benefits it brings.

 

[DavidBrown]

Bush walking safaris for tourists in Zambia require incredibly small areas of a vast country. Most tourists who visit Zambia rarely wish to travel far from Vic Falls. There is a small national park there and the many walking safaris that take place ticks most peoples box as to being on safari in Africa. You can see the rhino, some heavily inbred giraffe and groups of zebra, buffalo and antelope. Even the well known huge national parks of Kafue, Luangwa valley are visited by a very small percentage of tourists because they are too far to travel, dont have adequate accomodation, roads etc.. In a few hundred hectares you can accomodate most tourists. The wildlife authority were planning such a small park near Lusaka between the airport and the city for such reasons.


Many of the national parks in Zambia are not managed/ regulated and populations of animals that could be there are very small due to heavy exploitation.

Game management areas cover more than twice the land as national parks.

I dont enjoy the idea of shooting and have no desire to. However I can see and have seen the benefits it brings.

I can only speak for the South and North Luangwa National Parks because that is where I did some giraffe research, but there is extensive safari infrastructure there and much of it is built around bushwalking safaris. The safari industry in general is very well set up there. The Game Management Areas are very important parts of the park there and do buffer it from development. Sports hunting IS important, however there is much concern about what mismanagement of it is doing to the social structure of the lion population. There is also much concern about poaching as there has been massive illegal offtake of buffalo and this becomes a nightmare when one tries to manage legal hunting of buffalo - illegal hunting wipes out any gains that legal hunting might bring. There was an elephant poaching apocalypse in the Luangwa Valley during the 1980s and the population is still recovering, so the value of elephant sport hunting there is also questionable.