quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Hunting is not a right, it is a privilege. As such the sport exists at the will of the public. If we are tone deaf to public perceptions of what is acceptable and what is not . . . our hunting privileges will disappear or continue to be curtailed. That is simply reality.

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Hunting is not a right, it is a privilege. As such the sport exists at the will of the public. If we are tone deaf to public perceptions of what is acceptable and what is not . . . our hunting privileges will disappear or continue to be curtailed. That is simply reality.

I don't disagree with you at all on this point. But at what point does giving in on this or that or the other, essentially curtailing some hunting to protect the remaining, become a Chamberlain-esque policy of appeasement? Appeasement never works in the end. You just slowly give away the loaf of bread hoping in the end you get some crumbs.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There is no mistaking that across Africa elephant numbers have decreased alarmingly. This includes some historical hunting areas.

In my mind hunting cow elephant creates the following concerns:

1) shooting cows in herds is accepted as making those herd animals more aggressive. In places in Zimbabwe this would lend itself to those herd animals having more human conflict and more animals (cows) are shot on PAC.

2) cow elephant never go through menopause. They either have a calf in some state of dependency, are pregnant, or capable of being pregnant. Thus, to kill a cow is to kill a breeder. Do we need as many vreeders as we can get?

Ultimately, science based information is what should, and I hope does, determine whether cows should be on quota for a given concession in a host nation. If professional biologists tell me this area has X number of elephant, and the carrying capacity is this number, and this is the ecological damage being done by this z number of too many elephant, then quota should be issued. The general public would be apathetic, but not damning to such science.

The concession holder and host nation should have some voice in what those numbers are. However, those numbers would have to be verified independently by professional scientist, the US Government, and CIITES.

The result would be some concessions it would be against conservation to issue cow quota or shoot cows unnecessarily. In others quota should be issued.

The fact remains that no independent, scientific information is readily available to support or defend issuance of a cow quota. Those studies and like studies for lion are we're our money for hunting conservation needs to go. The PR side of it is to distribute that information. Yes, when such studies say folks the math does not justify to killing as it is being done now for a given area. Instead of decrying greenie science we need to recalibrate what we are doing.

Posters on this this thread have been hostile to the intentions of the Frankfurt group. Frankfurt group has been very polite in this controversy to hunting upto this point. I appreciate them for that. We aligenate these folks at our own risk.

Zimbabwe's elephant population is roughly double the carrying capacity of the country based up what the experts think. Some of the experts openly advocate large scale culling due to the damage being done.

Conservation isn't just about a single species.

With double the carrying capacity of the country, why wouldn't cows be shot? It makes the most sense.

Thank you Mr. Shores. I believe that but us rank and file and concession holders need that independent, scientific data. Sadly, we do not have it. That data from secentfic professionals needs to be communicated to the masses before a crisis happens effectively throug traditional and new social media. That is not happening.

The stated and accepted number of elephant is 350,000 as of 2016. We can argue with that number, but that is the number to majority of scientists and the public accepts. I think Zimbabwe may have 100k to 125k. Where and how are those animals concentrated through out Zimbabwe? What is the mortality rate in a given area, how many in a given area is too many? What damage is being done by too high a concentration of elephant? How much does the Cow quota balance this or subsidies habitat? This information has to be verified by a third source. I do not trust any count done by Zimbabwe.

These specific hard numbers is what we need. It is what I would need to see before booking a cow elephant hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There is no mistaking that across Africa elephant numbers have decreased alarmingly. This includes some historical hunting areas.

In my mind hunting cow elephant creates the following concerns:

1) shooting cows in herds is accepted as making those herd animals more aggressive. In places in Zimbabwe this would lend itself to those herd animals having more human conflict and more animals (cows) are shot on PAC.

2) cow elephant never go through menopause. They either have a calf in some state of dependency, are pregnant, or capable of being pregnant. Thus, to kill a cow is to kill a breeder. Do we need as many vreeders as we can get?

Ultimately, science based information is what should, and I hope does, determine whether cows should be on quota for a given concession in a host nation. If professional biologists tell me this area has X number of elephant, and the carrying capacity is this number, and this is the ecological damage being done by this z number of too many elephant, then quota should be issued. The general public would be apathetic, but not damning to such science.

The concession holder and host nation should have some voice in what those numbers are. However, those numbers would have to be verified independently by professional scientist, the US Government, and CIITES.

The result would be some concessions it would be against conservation to issue cow quota or shoot cows unnecessarily. In others quota should be issued.

The fact remains that no independent, scientific information is readily available to support or defend issuance of a cow quota. Those studies and like studies for lion are we're our money for hunting conservation needs to go. The PR side of it is to distribute that information. Yes, when such studies say folks the math does not justify to killing as it is being done now for a given area. Instead of decrying greenie science we need to recalibrate what we are doing.

Posters on this this thread have been hostile to the intentions of the Frankfurt group. Frankfurt group has been very polite in this controversy to hunting upto this point. I appreciate them for that. We aligenate these folks at our own risk.

Zimbabwe's elephant population is roughly double the carrying capacity of the country based up what the experts think. Some of the experts openly advocate large scale culling due to the damage being done.

Conservation isn't just about a single species.

With double the carrying capacity of the country, why wouldn't cows be shot? It makes the most sense.

Thank you Mr. Shores. I believe that but us rank and file and concession holders need that independent, scientific data. Sadly, we do not have it. That data from secentfic professionals needs to be communicated to the masses before a crisis happens effectively throug traditional and new social media. That is not happening.

The stated and accepted number of elephant is 350,000 as of 2016. We can argue with that number, but that is the number to majority of scientists and the public accepts. I think Zimbabwe may have 100k to 125k. Where and how are those animals concentrated through out Zimbabwe? What is the mortality rate in a given area, how many in a given area is too many? What damage is being done by too high a concentration of elephant? How much does the Cow quota balance this or subsidies habitat? This information has to be verified by a third source. I do not trust any count done by Zimbabwe.

These specific hard numbers is what we need. It is what I would need to see before booking a cow elephant hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Like I said, the public apparently understands the distinction between hunting collared animals on national park boundaries and pen raised lions versus hunting female animals

We all know and agree the general public is grossly misinformed or simply uninformed as to the conservation benefits of hunting.

Within that context, and the context of the EMOTIONAL underpinnings of the general public's opinion on the subject of hunting in general, anyone who believes the masses object more to the shooting of a collared animal over the shooting of a PREGNANT FEMALE is in serious denial!

And the "can't see the forrest for the trees" message here is that the guy who has probably shot more tuskless cows than anyone on the forum, remembering they are all pregnant or else nursing dependent calves, is oblivious to the fact he is living in a glass house on the ethics issue due to this very topic.

I argue that a conservation message can also be made for shooting a collared bull near a park. That argument being the reason for hunting blocks surrounding the park in the first place being a construct for off take of animals in excess of the carrying capacity of the park. As has been stated here and other places on this forum when discussing the collaring and studying of animals, the fact that the animal moved into a hunting block and was taken by legal hunting means should be nothing more than a data point in the research study ... that is unless the reason for placing the collar had other motivations than pure research in the first place.

I know well the conservation argument for shooting tuskless cows, which are all pregnant. I can make that very strong argument as well if given the opportunity. But I'll guarantee you that when placing the Pregnant Female vs Collared Bull topics placed side by side, the shooting of Pregnant Female elephants will rate far higher on the public's scale of offensiveness! I'd go so far as to say it isn't even a close comparison.

Just to be clear, I've shot a few tuskless cow elephants, which are all pregnant. I will probably do so again as I fully understand the conservation narrative. But then again, I'm not the guy here telling others that my ethics are superior to everyone else's and that you will either conform to MY standards or watch your hunting rights disappear completely.

Carry on. I'm out!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Hunting is not a right, it is a privilege. As such the sport exists at the will of the public. If we are tone deaf to public perceptions of what is acceptable and what is not . . . our hunting privileges will disappear or continue to be curtailed. That is simply reality.

I don't disagree with you at all on this point. But at what point does giving in on this or that or the other, essentially curtailing some hunting to protect the remaining, become a Chamberlain-esque policy of appeasement? Appeasement never works in the end. You just slowly give away the loaf of bread hoping in the end you get some crumbs.

Mike is right on with what he is saying,but some of us are turning this into a pissing match,think of it this way, if you owned a business? What would you rather have? good or bad publicity?

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Hunting is not a right, it is a privilege. As such the sport exists at the will of the public. If we are tone deaf to public perceptions of what is acceptable and what is not . . . our hunting privileges will disappear or continue to be curtailed. That is simply reality.

I don't disagree with you at all on this point. But at what point does giving in on this or that or the other, essentially curtailing some hunting to protect the remaining, become a Chamberlain-esque policy of appeasement? Appeasement never works in the end. You just slowly give away the loaf of bread hoping in the end you get some crumbs.

Mike is right on with what he is saying,but some of us are turning this into a pissing match,think of it this way, if you owned a business? What would you rather have? good or bad publicity?

Well I hope I'm not thought of as turning this into a pissing match, because it certainly is not my intention. I believe sincerely that there is room for discussion/negotiation on what should/shouldn't be done at anytime in regards to hunting. But I also believe in an effort to pacify emotions and abandoning logic/science/facts, we could find ourselves quickly sliding down a steep slippery slope to a point of why would we bother hunting anymore?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Like I said, the public apparently understands the distinction between hunting collared animals on national park boundaries and pen raised lions versus hunting female animals

We all know and agree the general public is grossly misinformed or simply uninformed as to the conservation benefits of hunting.

Within that context, and the context of the EMOTIONAL underpinnings of the general public's opinion on the subject of hunting in general, anyone who believes the masses object more to the shooting of a collared animal over the shooting of a PREGNANT FEMALE is in serious denial!

And the "can't see the forrest for the trees" message here is that the guy who has probably shot more tuskless cows than anyone on the forum, remembering they are all pregnant or else nursing dependent calves, is oblivious to the fact he is living in a glass house on the ethics issue due to this very topic.

I argue that a conservation message can also be made for shooting a collared bull near a park. That argument being the reason for hunting blocks surrounding the park in the first place being a construct for off take of animals in excess of the carrying capacity of the park. As has been stated here and other places on this forum when discussing the collaring and studying of animals, the fact that the animal moved into a hunting block and was taken by legal hunting means should be nothing more than a data point in the research study ... that is unless the reason for placing the collar had other motivations than pure research in the first place.

I know well the conservation argument for shooting tuskless cows, which are all pregnant. I can make that very strong argument as well if given the opportunity. But I'll guarantee you that when placing the Pregnant Female vs Collared Bull topics placed side by side, the shooting of Pregnant Female elephants will rate far higher on the public's scale of offensiveness! I'd go so far as to say it isn't even a close comparison.

Just to be clear, I've shot a few tuskless cow elephants, which are all pregnant. I will probably do so again as I fully understand the conservation narrative. But then again, I'm not the guy here telling others that my ethics are superior to everyone else's and that you will either conform to MY standards or watch your hunting rights disappear completely.

Carry on. I'm out!!

I think FZS will freely admit that the collaring of this bull had little to do with actual research and much to do with protection.

The real truth of the matter is that there are few of these large tusked ele left.

Many PHs who have been around ele their whole lives have never seen one larger that 70#.

With most species...lion for example...it takes little time to make mature handsome males.

With ele...it takes 50 years to make tusks of that magnitude and the percentage with the correct genetics is very low.

FZS knows 99% of the large resident ele in Gonarezhou...they collared this bull as they thought his survival was paramount.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Hunting is not a right, it is a privilege. As such the sport exists at the will of the public. If we are tone deaf to public perceptions of what is acceptable and what is not . . . our hunting privileges will disappear or continue to be curtailed. That is simply reality.

I don't disagree with you at all on this point. But at what point does giving in on this or that or the other, essentially curtailing some hunting to protect the remaining, become a Chamberlain-esque policy of appeasement? Appeasement never works in the end. You just slowly give away the loaf of bread hoping in the end you get some crumbs.

Mike is right on with what he is saying,but some of us are turning this into a pissing match,think of it this way, if you owned a business? What would you rather have? good or bad publicity?

Well I hope I'm not thought of as turning this into a pissing match, because it certainly is not my intention. I believe sincerely that there is room for discussion/negotiation on what should/shouldn't be done at anytime in regards to hunting. But I also believe in an effort to pacify emotions and abandoning logic/science/facts, we could find ourselves quickly sliding down a steep slippery slope to a point of why would we bother hunting anymore?

See my post above yours.

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill73:

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Hunting is not a right, it is a privilege. As such the sport exists at the will of the public. If we are tone deaf to public perceptions of what is acceptable and what is not . . . our hunting privileges will disappear or continue to be curtailed. That is simply reality.

I don't disagree with you at all on this point. But at what point does giving in on this or that or the other, essentially curtailing some hunting to protect the remaining, become a Chamberlain-esque policy of appeasement? Appeasement never works in the end. You just slowly give away the loaf of bread hoping in the end you get some crumbs.

Mike is right on with what he is saying,but some of us are turning this into a pissing match,think of it this way, if you owned a business? What would you rather have? good or bad publicity?

Well I hope I'm not thought of as turning this into a pissing match, because it certainly is not my intention. I believe sincerely that there is room for discussion/negotiation on what should/shouldn't be done at anytime in regards to hunting. But I also believe in an effort to pacify emotions and abandoning logic/science/facts, we could find ourselves quickly sliding down a steep slippery slope to a point of why would we bother hunting anymore?

See my post above yours.

I did, but I guess I don't quite see how it relates to my post.

What I'll say regarding your post is that if FZS wanted this bull to have protected status, why did they not make an effort to warn MP or any other PH in the area? On page 2, Buzz says FZS wrote a letter stating they "DID NOT WARN THE OPERATOR/PH THAT IT WAS IN THE HUNTING AREA"

If it was of such importance to FZS they keep this bull around, they didn't seem to be taking appropriate actions to ensure its survival. If they were relying on some sort of agreement/understanding between the hunting outfitters and themselves, that's a bit risky I'd think in early March when vegetation is thick.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
From Conservation Force. There is no question that elephant cow hunting is integral to elephant conservation in Zim.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Like I said, the public apparently understands the distinction between hunting collared animals on national park boundaries and pen raised lions versus hunting female animals

We all know and agree the general public is grossly misinformed or simply uninformed as to the conservation benefits of hunting.

Within that context, and the context of the EMOTIONAL underpinnings of the general public's opinion on the subject of hunting in general, anyone who believes the masses object more to the shooting of a collared animal over the shooting of a PREGNANT FEMALE is in serious denial!

And the "can't see the forrest for the trees" message here is that the guy who has probably shot more tuskless cows than anyone on the forum, remembering they are all pregnant or else nursing dependent calves, is oblivious to the fact he is living in a glass house on the ethics issue due to this very topic.

I argue that a conservation message can also be made for shooting a collared bull near a park. That argument being the reason for hunting blocks surrounding the park in the first place being a construct for off take of animals in excess of the carrying capacity of the park. As has been stated here and other places on this forum when discussing the collaring and studying of animals, the fact that the animal moved into a hunting block and was taken by legal hunting means should be nothing more than a data point in the research study ... that is unless the reason for placing the collar had other motivations than pure research in the first place.

I know well the conservation argument for shooting tuskless cows, which are all pregnant. I can make that very strong argument as well if given the opportunity. But I'll guarantee you that when placing the Pregnant Female vs Collared Bull topics placed side by side, the shooting of Pregnant Female elephants will rate far higher on the public's scale of offensiveness! I'd go so far as to say it isn't even a close comparison.

Just to be clear, I've shot a few tuskless cow elephants, which are all pregnant. I will probably do so again as I fully understand the conservation narrative. But then again, I'm not the guy here telling others that my ethics are superior to everyone else's and that you will either conform to MY standards or watch your hunting rights disappear completely.

Carry on. I'm out!!

quote:

Originally posted by npd345:
Thanks Todd for one of the only posts that makes any sense among all of the rumor spreaders and hypocrites.
shane

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Like I said, the public apparently understands the distinction between hunting collared animals on national park boundaries and pen raised lions versus hunting female animals

We all know and agree the general public is grossly misinformed or simply uninformed as to the conservation benefits of hunting.

Within that context, and the context of the EMOTIONAL underpinnings of the general public's opinion on the subject of hunting in general, anyone who believes the masses object more to the shooting of a collared animal over the shooting of a PREGNANT FEMALE is in serious denial!

And the "can't see the forrest for the trees" message here is that the guy who has probably shot more tuskless cows than anyone on the forum, remembering they are all pregnant or else nursing dependent calves, is oblivious to the fact he is living in a glass house on the ethics issue due to this very topic.

I argue that a conservation message can also be made for shooting a collared bull near a park. That argument being the reason for hunting blocks surrounding the park in the first place being a construct for off take of animals in excess of the carrying capacity of the park. As has been stated here and other places on this forum when discussing the collaring and studying of animals, the fact that the animal moved into a hunting block and was taken by legal hunting means should be nothing more than a data point in the research study ... that is unless the reason for placing the collar had other motivations than pure research in the first place.

I know well the conservation argument for shooting tuskless cows, which are all pregnant. I can make that very strong argument as well if given the opportunity. But I'll guarantee you that when placing the Pregnant Female vs Collared Bull topics placed side by side, the shooting of Pregnant Female elephants will rate far higher on the public's scale of offensiveness! I'd go so far as to say it isn't even a close comparison.

Just to be clear, I've shot a few tuskless cow elephants, which are all pregnant. I will probably do so again as I fully understand the conservation narrative. But then again, I'm not the guy here telling others that my ethics are superior to everyone else's and that you will either conform to MY standards or watch your hunting rights disappear completely.

Carry on. I'm out!!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
One elephant killed legally, is creating so much fuss from the freaks!

Thousands killed every year by poachers, and not a word is heard!!

All these utterly stupid so called animal lovers and conservation organizations are nothing but self serving idiots!

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

+1

This is all about saving the last of the big tuskers. Once they are gone there is zero chance for any ar member will see another one in their lifetime.

Also the elephants that will survive will also look very similar in ivory. The East African long tusk sadly are already becoming history.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Baker458:
Is THAT what the radio collar looks like? (Saeed's post above). I looked up 'elephant radio collar' images online and indeed, that's what they look like.

I'm sorry, folks; but that could ABSOLUTELY go unseen. Hell, sometimes you can't see the WHOLE DAMN ELEPHANT at 25 yards (until it moves.)

In shade, it's pretty close to the color of the elephant!!!

If there is an actual 'iconic' collared animal that goes on walkabout into a hunting area, the group monitoring it SHOULD ONE THOUSAND PERCENT notify safari operators IMMEDIATELY. And there should be a solid, fast system set up to do so.

So; It's day 10 of a 14 day hunt. You are 5km inside the hunting area on a big track. Your PH gets a glimpse of some big ivory through the bush. "BIG BULL, BIIIG BULL!" He whispers to you.
You close in, the ele moves a bit and you have a side brain shot available. You are 20 yards away and the breeze could shift at any second, ruining your chances. So this is the time to tell the PH "I want a FULL view of his neck/shoulder to make sure he's not collared."??? REALLY???

RIIIIIIIGHT. If someone expects me to believe they'd do that, I am calling a massive 'bullshit' on that individual.
In open country, sure. In thick bush, bullshit.

Which is why those doing the study need to notify the safari company.

quote:

Check this pic & note not only the dart in his arse but also the fact the pic was taken in good light

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

+1

This is all about saving the last of the big tuskers. Once they are gone there is zero chance for any ar member will see another one in their lifetime.

Also the elephants that will survive will also look very similar in ivory. The East African long tusk sadly are already becoming history.

Mike

More evidence of the antis wining the publicity war. They've got us hunters using their false narratives.


Any amount of critical thinking will reveal that this bull passed along his genes many times over his lifetime ... meaning the only thing required to see similar sized bulls from his lineage is time to grow.


But it makes a nice EMOTIONAL argument ... the very thing the anti's use as ammunition against our science / fact based conservation arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

+1

This is all about saving the last of the big tuskers. Once they are gone there is zero chance for any ar member will see another one in their lifetime.

Also the elephants that will survive will also look very similar in ivory. The East African long tusk sadly are already becoming history.

Mike

More evidence of the antis wining the publicity war. They've got us hunters using their false narratives.


Any amount of critical thinking will reveal that this bull passed along his genes many times over his lifetime ... meaning the only thing required to see similar sized bulls from his lineage is time to grow.


But it makes a nice EMOTIONAL argument ... the very thing the anti's use as ammunition against our science / fact based conservation arguments.

Hunter's don't own the wildlife. We share it with everyone in the world. Some people like to travel to Gonarezhou and photo/view wildlife. Operators guiding such need animals to view as well.

Big tuskers are rare...no credible ele expert will tell you different. Tuskers are an attraction for non-hunting public and due to rarity are usually well known in parks. The big bull shot in Malapati a couple of years ago was a rare exception.

As Mike so correctly stated...very few ele are collared.

FZS will freely admit to collaring strictly for protection banking on the strong ethical code of Zim PHs.

Hunters...if we are to maintain our privilege...are going to have to get along with photo-safari operators and hunting friendly ecological/conservation groups like FZS...or the public will eventually take that privilege away.

For me...it does not seem like rocket science.

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

But I can imagine were it unlawful to take a collared bull and if MP had also been forewarned the bull was in his hunting area, that he could have discussed this with his client and taken extra measures to ensure this bull was not shot.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:

But I can imagine were it unlawful to take a collared bull and if MP had also been forewarned the bull was in his hunting area, that he could have discussed this with his client and taken extra measures to ensure this bull was not shot.

. . . or if someone shot a collared bull less than ten years prior that raised quite a stink at the time when the excuse was that the collar could not be seen.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I would have to think there is only so much hell the FZS can raise without having a problem themselves. Thus, we are hearing little from them.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . what is important is that apparently it breached ZPHGA ethical standards. They should be commended for embracing ethical conduct by members . . . in fact their website features prominently on the home page "Ethics are Everything!"

Not sure why we need laws for everything when just a little good judgment will often suffice.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . what is important is that apparently it breached ZPHGA ethical standards. They should be commended for embracing ethical conduct by members . . . in fact their website features prominently on the home page "Ethics are Everything!"

Not sure why we need laws for everything when just a little good judgment will often suffice.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We have plenty of laws . . . what we have a shortage of is good judgment. But rest assured if we continue to exercise poor judgment, then the laws will change and the result is likely to be more draconian than if we had simply done a better job of just acting responsibly in the first place.