Aaron,
if you have further info on the 4 lion pics you posted it would be a good idea to share it here, x-rays, pics of tooth ware, etc.

quote:

you have missed what the safari business has done for the wildlife over almost the entire continent of Africa.

Nope, I haven't. I know very well what hunters' dollars have done to management on a whole. But to proclaim that a particular species will die off because it does not benefit from all that comes from hunting them, singularly, is foolish and short-sighted.

quote:

Nope, I haven't. I know very well what hunters' dollars have done to management on a whole. But to proclaim that a particular species will die off because it does not benefit from all that comes from hunting them, singularly, is foolish and short-sighted.

That's very true. It's not the right way when hunters try to say that sport hunting is the most important thing to protect animals. The most important thing is money and people who are willing to fight for the species. Sport hunting is a benefit but it's not the only way.

Well done, Aaron. I had not heard of the lion management measures put into effect in the Niassa region. Very interesting.

And your comments regarding pseudo-science and junk science are sad, but all too true.

As for the difficulty of lion aging, an extreme example of the variation in lion appearance are the West African lions, which have sparse manes well into old age.

Much work remains to be done to develop and refine the data base on the African lion, and I agree that John Jackson is to be commended and supported for the efforts of Conservation Force to do just that.

quote:

That's very true. It's not the right way when hunters try to say that sport hunting is the most important thing to protect animals. The most important thing is money and people who are willing to fight for the species. Sport hunting is a benefit but it's not the only way.

Very well said. And I will add (for myself) that to maintain a species ONLY for the sake of having sufficient population to hunt them is, in my opinion, wrong. Animals deserve to be valued as a species in the general ecosystem and not just something to serve as a means to our enjoyment.

quote:

Originally posted by Oryxhunter1983:
Aaron,
I'm not making myself clear...I have nothing against CF or John Jackson, I've read his stuff and met the guy, it's fine.

What I'm trying to say is, the scientific world, where real research is done, operates on published scientific papers. If hunters plan on fighting the media...and other organization who operate without PROVEN facts...they will need Proven/Accepted/endorsed facts from the scientific community.

OK, taking that a step further. Is Dr. Paula White published at all? She appears to have the data on Zambia and also appears to NOT be anti-hunting.

How do "we" get her published and PEER reviewed?

If lion hunting is banned, then would us poor guys have a better chance in getting a bigger buffalo due to less lions? Less lions=more buffalos?

WOW! So many posts, I cannot keep up, plus try to work too!

BaxterB - No one is advocating, the only reason to save lions is so we can shoot them. Come on guys, take this for the WHOLE that it is. Secondly, I'm not saying the lion would go completely extinct, without hunting either. But, without protection throughout much of their range, that is providing TOTALLY by the hunting community, their populations would eventually be limited only to National Parks, and preserves.

Throughout much of the lion's range, hunting is the only viable means to support the lion, and other species. Many of the fabulous hunting blocks throughout eastern & southern Africa, are good for nothing, but hunting. Photographic folks, are not interersted in places chock full of tsetse flies, and covered with miobmo woodlands, where game is often plentiful, but difficult to see from a vehicle. Places where pricey charter flights are the only way in & out, unless you like a 3-4 day drives over rough dirt roads, etc. So in almost all of these places, hunting is the ONLY thing supporting the wildlife, and the local people. As I mentioned in my original post, Tanzania has roughly 185,000km2 of hunting blocks, Zambia has roughly 140,000km2, and Zimbabwe has a little over 40,000km2 of hunting blocks. Who do you suppose will protect the game/lions in these areas, if hunting is abolished, or greatly curtailed??????

Just a quick example of money revenues for the country of Zambia, a MAJOR hunting destination. ZAWA (Zambian Wildlife Authority) said recently at a meeting with the Zambian Professional Hunter's Association, at 100% capacity, hunting generates 23 Billion Kwacha for ZAWA, and photographic, generates only 15 Billion!

Secondly, in many of the places the lion is the big ticket item!!! Without the ability to hunt the lion, and sell lion hunts, many of the operators COULD NOT continue to operate. Its just too costly. So, take away the ability to hunt lion, and ALL of the game suffers, along with the people. Any of us who have spent considerable time in these rural hunting concessions know full well, who funds and supports ALL of the anti-poaching programs put forth, its the hunting operators, and no one else. If left un-protected all the game suffers, including the lion! GUYS, TRUST ME ON THIS. I WORK FOR AN OPERATOR, I KNOW THE NUMBERS, I KNOW THE FACTS. TAKE AWAY THE LION HUNTING, AND WERE OUT OF BUSINESS.

Third, as 505Gibbs, Ledvm, Oryxhunter, and others advocate for. Science is how we must take our stand. If you read carefully, my original post, you will see in two very specific areas of Africa, Zambia (Luangwa & Kafue), plus Mozambique (Niassa), two scientists who are studying the REAL effects of lion hunting, on the lion, both agree. They state clearly that lion hunting is not to the detriment of the lion, in fact quite the contrary.

My point to all of this is simple. First we must inform ourselves, period! Then we work TOGETHER with scientists who are willing and want to provide the FACTS, regardless of their outcome. Of course, we know not ALL of it will be in our favor. We must be willing to accept the facts, and make changes where necessary. BUT, to let the likes of Derek Joubert (who is not a scientist, just a film maker), and other "scientists", who are solely interested in providing false info, that fits with their personal/political agenda, and fits with the mind-set of those who fund them, would be a disaster.

Aaron,

Is there a single-point resource that has the information you alluded to on the areas that are not photo-friendly etc and are supported solely by hunters's dollars? That is a very strong argument in favor of hunting in general and I would like to have more details and sources to explore this avenue.

Thanks,

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Aaron,

Is there a single-point resource that has the information you alluded to on the areas that are not photo-friendly etc and are supported solely by hunters's dollars? That is a very strong argument in favor of hunting in general and I would like to have more details and sources to explore this avenue.

Thanks,

BaxterB - How about the article below, for starters.


Why is Africa’s wildlife in protected areas in widespread decline?

The alarm bells are ringing in the scientific world and conservation circles – Africa’s wildlife inside National Parks and Game Reserves is in widespread decline and it has little to do with poaching or bad conservation management!

It appears that there is a crisis in wildlife conservation in Africa. A recent paper in the Journal of Zoology by Joseph Ogutu and colleagues documents how many ungulate species (large hoofed herbivores) in the famous Masai-Mara reserve have declined in recent times.
The same goes for most other East African National Parks, such as Nairobi National Park and Tarangire where wildebeest numbers especially have plummeted.

Similarly, wildebeest numbers in Etosha National Park in Namibia and Kruger National Park in South Africa have also declined greatly. We need look no further than our own Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) to see that an estimated 250 000 wildebeest in the 1970’s and 1980s has crashed to several thousand today.

The same is true for eland, hartebeest and zebra in the CKGR. In addition, Sable, Roan, Tsessebe and Eland populations have declined drastically in most conservation areas in Africa. This Africa-wide decline in wildlife in protected areas has sparked a recent paper in the African Journal of Ecology entitled: “When protection falters”. Another paper in 2009 in the Journal Endangered Species Research was titled: “Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals”.

What is going wrong and why are well-managed conservation areas suddenly losing species? With current scientific understanding on what determines healthy ungulate populations it is not a difficult question to answer. Food quality and availability varies greatly over the year and in the dry season protein and energy levels in grass fall to levels well below that required to enable an ungulate to survive.

As a result many ungulates migrate between wet and dry season resources. Obtaining high quality forage during the calving period in the wet season is critical because it is at this time that females have extreme nutrient and energy demands to produce sufficient milk for their calves.
Insufficient milk supply to the calves results in slow calf growth rates making them more vulnerable to predators and they are less likely to survive the oncoming dry season.

Similarly, the adults need to obtain high levels of protein and energy in the growing season to replenish their body reserves to enable them to survive the time of low forage quality and quantity during the dry season. During the dry season ungulates migrate to areas that allow them to find some quality forage to prevent them using up their body reserves too fast.

Typical examples of high quality wet season grazing areas are the short-grass plains of the Serengeti on fertile volcanic soils or the short-grass areas on saline soils in the Makgadikgadi or Nxai Pans Parks. A common mistake that many people make is that they attribute lots of tall grass as being good grazing.

Tall grass is not high quality forage because of all the undigestible fibre and low concentrations of protein and energy and wildlife will generally avoid these areas, preferring short-grass areas with their low amounts of stem and fiber and high concentration of protein and energy. Typical examples of dry season grazing areas are the floodplains of the Okavango or the high rainfall regions in northern Serengeti where some green grazing may be obtained in the dry season.

It’s all about being able to move between quality wet-season and dry-season grazing areas. Apart from the importance of migration for gaining sufficient nutrients and energy in their diet it is now being recognized that there is another critical advantage for ungulates in migration; migration limits the size of the predator population because predators such as lions are territorial and cannot follow migrations.

Research across Africa has shown that lion numbers are determined by the availability of prey during the period when the migrations have left their territories and that lion predation has very little effect on the numbers of migratory ungulates.

When something stops ungulates migrating lions start to have a major negative effect on these ungulate populations. The same is true for wolf-ungulate dynamics in North America.
Thus truly functional wildlife reserves need to include areas with the right wet-season and dry-season grazing areas so that ungulates can get the right amount of energy and nutrients in their diet at critical times of the year and can avoid excessive predation.

The problem is that when most of Africa’s wildlife reserves were proclaimed conservationists did not really understand what determined a truly functional wildlife system and almost all of Africa’s reserves are missing either a wet-season or a dry-season grazing area.

Despite this lack of functionality, most African reserves still functioned well enough when human population pressure around the reserves was still low and wildlife was still freely able to migrate outside the reserves when needed.

In a classic example, the Kruger National Park is proclaimed in the low-rainfall areas of the eastern Lowveld region, which is the wet-season grazing area, but misses all the very high rainfall areas in the foothills of the western escarpment, which is the dry-season grazing area. The first warden of Kruger, Colonel James Stevenson-Hamilton, in his book Wildlife in South Africa, had this to say: “Between 1925 and 1936 occurred a long period of drought, hardly uninterrupted by a rainfall during three of the intervening years, which, though reasonable in actual amount, fell at the wrong times, and usually in the shape of heavy storms instead of light soaking rain. The result was a general exodus of the more migratory species from the already overgrazed portions of the Park in the east, towards the more fertile and better-watered foothills of the Drakensberg and eastwards into Portuguese territory. Some such exodus had always taken place annually in the past, with a backward trek at the first rains, but owing to persistently arid conditions from year to year, culminating in 1934-5, there was less and less tendency for the herds to return to their former grazing grounds, and finally they became largely settled in the new localities. Had there been no natural migrating space available, or had the Park been enclosed by some unsurmountable obstacles, as some think it ought to be, no doubt there would have been wholesale death from starvation and disease among all the ungulate fauna”.

Unfortunately for Kruger, and more recently for many other reserves across Africa, agricultural development and human settlement have largely made migration outside the reserves impossible, hence the recent crash in ungulate populations throughout Africa.

A sad story, but reality; African wildlife as we once knew it is on the way out and there is no return unless their former grazing grounds outside the reserves are returned to them, which is largely a logistical and ethical impossibility.

There are, however, several conservation regions in Africa which still encompass both functional wet-season and dry-season grazing grounds and still have healthy migrations and large ungulate populations. The four main regions of Africa are the Boma of Sudan with its magnificent migration of nearly one million white-eared kob, the famous Serengeti with its millions of wildebeest, zebra and Thompsons gazelles, the Selous-Nyassa complex on the Northern Mozambique border, and the Okavango delta-Makgadikgadi pan-Savuti-Chobe-Hwangwe complex (OMSCH complex).

The floodplains of the Okavango Delta, Kwando-Linyanti, as well as Savuti and Mababe in high flood years provide important dry-season grazing when ungulates are able to find green grazing at a time when all other areas have only dry grass. Saline soils in the outlying woodlands and especially in the Nxai pan and Makgadikgadi regions provide highly nutritious short grasses for the critical wet-season calving period.

Recent research has shown that zebra are migrating 240 km between the Moremi game reserve and Makgadikgadi, using the floodplains of Moremi in the dry season and the nutritious short-grass areas of Makgadikgadi in the wet season. Thus this region is one of Africa’s last surviving functional wildlife regions and the future for wildlife in this region is very bright, provided that it remains unfragmented and intact. This region is of great conservation importance and it is critical to ensure that it remains intact and unfragmented.

By stark contrast the Central Kalahari Game Reserve is no longer a functional wildlife reserve because its key migration routes to dry-season grazing, such as on the Boteti River, Lake Ngami, and in the Southern Kalahari have been cut off by human expansion and cattle farming, hence the precipitous crash in its once great populations of wildebeest, zebra, hartebeest and eland, which can never be expected to recover so long as their dry-season grazing grounds are lost. Thus just because it CKGR is a massive area does not make it a functional area (the Kruger is another example).

This tells us that conservationists must now focus time, energy and money on conserving what still works: the functional OMSCH complex with its unbroken migration routes and large herds of game. Potential threats to the functional integrity of this region may arise, however.

The current hunting areas between the Delta and Nxai pan- Makgadikgadi pan region are a critical linkage for ungulate migration between the dry-season grazing areas of the Delta and the wet-season grazing areas of Nxai pan and Makgadikgadi as well as for elephant migration to Hwangwe National Park in Zimbabwe.

Hunting has minimal negative effects on the numbers of wildlife in the region and more importantly does not stop critical migrations between wet-season and dry-season grazing grounds.
Should these areas be lost to conservation in the future there will be a major impediment to migration and Nxai pan and Makgadikgadi will have become fragmented from the Delta.
This would be a major conservation disaster because as mentioned above it is migration between wet and dry season resources that allows large ungulate populations to exist.

Moremi, Nxai pan and Makgadikgadi cannot exist in isolation from each other and if fragmented wildlife in these reserves can be expected to go into long-term decline as is happening in the rest of Africa. The OMSCH complex is one of the last surviving unfragmented conservation regions in Africa and needs to be prioritized for conservation.

Recognizing that it is critical that the vast linkage areas between Moremi and Makgadikgadi pans remain under conservation with no fences to inhibit migration we need to ensure that they remain under a form of conservation landuse that is best suited to the nature of these areas.

The Delta with its wonderful scenary and high concentrations of wildlife makes it an excellent region for the development of photographic tourism. By contrast the link areas have little scenic value with none of the floodplain and water scenary of the Delta. Moreover, game viewing is poor with little to see but elephant. In the dry-season most of the wildlife leaves these areas and it is hard to imagine how photographic tourism alone could be a viable form of landuse in this vast waterless region characterized by dense monotonous bush and poor game viewing. Hunting is able to best utilize the resources of this region as it is a seasonal business that can synchronize itself with the seasonal appearance of elephant and does not rely on great scenary and game viewing.

An estimated 150 000 elephant in the OMSCH complex provides a vast resource for both photographic tourism as well as hunting. At a conservative growth rate of 7 % a year for a herbivore population one would have to shoot over 10 000 elephant a year to start to reduce the population size. Hunting, therefore, has no impact whatsoever on the size of this population. It is now well recognized in conservation circles that conservation areas that do not viable economic form of landuse are unlikely to persist in the long term; if game does not pay it will not stay.

We believe that hunting is key to the long term viability and persistence of conservation landuse of these critical linkage areas as it brings in important foreign currency for the country and makes these areas economically viable, something that photographic tourism is unlikely to be able to achieve. Removal of hunting from these link areas will render these areas extremely vulnerable to becoming replaced in the long term by non-conservation orientated forms of landuse and the eventual ecological meltdown of the entire OMSCH complex.

It is time for conservationists to start to put emotions aside and to start to think clearly and scientifically about the long-term conservation viability of wildlife populations in Botswana.
Recently authorities responsible for conservation and management of wildlife resources in Botswana pronounced changes in hunting management, arguing that hunting as it has been practiced is not complementary to the core business of wildlife conservation.

When challenged to explain what the core business of wildlife conservation in Botswana is, the authorities were not convincing all, and could not scientifically substantiate their claim that hunting is not complementary to the core business conservation.

Authorities even went on to impose a 25 km buffer around protected areas, a decision which practically bans hunting. Unfortunately and worrisomely, the argument for the 25km buffer is not based on any scientific understanding, despite the fact that the Department of Wildlife and National Parks have highly qualified junior and senior personnel who should be able to advise accordingly.

Authorities must understand and note that short-term decisions based on poorly informed anti-hunting sentiment could have long-term disastrous consequences for the conservation of one of the world’s last remaining functional wildlife regions. As indicated earlier in this article, there is no evidence to suggest that hunting as it has been practiced over the two to three decades is a major threat to Botswana’s remaining wildlife populations. The major threat is habitat destruction and loss of connectivity. It is against this background that major efforts, intellect, energy and resources should be directed towards maintaining connectivity of key habitats of functionally systems like OMSCH as opposed to banning hunting. Fragmentation of functional wildlife systems like the OMSCH complex must be avoided at all costs if Botswana wishes to continue to lay claim to one of the world’s last great wildlife systems.

Above all it is important to note that wildlife is a natural economic resource which is supposed to be used wisely to enhance livelihoods of those who live with the burden of conserving wildlife, and the national economy at large.

It is also important to note that as an ecosystem product, wildlife stands to contribute significantly to the reduction of the impact of rural poverty through adding game meat to the food basket of rural poor communities such Khwai, Phuduhudu, Mababe, Sankoyo and many other rural communities living in wildlife management areas.

A recent study (Brian Child, in preparation for publication) shows that should hunting be removed from the current areas, 40% of households that are currently above the hunger-line in Sankoyo Village will be driven below the hunger-line. It seems the authorities were not mindful of such facts when the decision to remove hunting was taken.

*Authors of the article are Senior Research Scholars in Ecology at the Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre (HOORC), University of Botswana, Maun Campus

By : Richard Fynn and Mpaphi Casper Bonyongo - 2010-06-06 14:18:40

That's great! The more of this stuff you are willing to pass on to us is much appreciated. While I appreciate the impassioned posts, I also really like stuff 'from the horses mouth' to gain an even deeper understanding.

Thanks again.

BaxterB,

I don't think there will be a "single-point resource" that will provide information on the photo-friendliness or photo-unfriendliness of hunting concessions and conservancies. I think it is common knowledge among all who have hunted Africa that hunting areas in no way compare to the game-viewing bonanza that is provided in places like Kruger Park in SA, or the Serengeti NP, or the Chobe NP, etc.

I know of a hunting consession in SA where the new owners built a new lodge, and their intention was to cater to game-viewing non-hunters. I've hunted that property, and although I had some success on it, it was not a game-rich environment that could in any way compare to a National Park. I wondered why they would try to cater to this crowd, when Kruger park is only about 120 miles away, and the game viewing is 1000 times better in Kruger.

I wasn;t really lookign to know whether an area as photo-friendly or not, but economically how those areas that are hunting friendly but not photo friendly (as determined by current majority use) are supported by hunting and what the result would be to the general ecosystem of hunting were abated.

The post Aaron just posted is very good, I just like more detail, as I said.

I would think somewhere someone (or many) have studied the economics and ecological consequences of just about every location interested to hunters etc.

Last Lions" film humanizes fate of African lions

By Christine Kearney– Wed Feb 23, 6:05 pm ET



NEW YORK (Reuters) – Filmmakers Dereck and Beverly Joubert are somewhat famous in the small world of wildlife documentaries, and to those outside it, lead a romantic life filming wild animals against an enchanting African landscape.

But the topic of their new film, "The Last Lions," which recently opened in the United States, is anything but ideal.

The cold statistic that drew the husband and wife team to their latest story -- set in the lush wetlands of Botswana's Okavango Delta -- speaks for itself. In the last 50 years, African lions have plummeted in numbers from 450,000 to between 20,000 and 50,000, conservation groups say.

"These numbers are in desperate, desperate decline," said Dereck Joubert. "So we are going have to do something about these lions now or else we are going to have to face their extinction."

Statistics aside, "The Last Lions," is no dry documentary. Breathtakingly shot and narrated by actor Jeremy Irons, the Jouberts illustrate their point through the emotional, suspenseful tale of one lion, Ma di Tau, as she battles to keep her family alive, hunting buffalo five times her size.

"We wanted to bring this to an audience in a big theatric venue, on a big screen, so that people could engage with lions," Dereck Joubert said.

"Last Lions" has been compared to the Oscar-winning "March of the Penguins," which humanized a tale of Antarctic Emperor penguins on their annual trek to a breeding ground where they share protective duties over eggs and hatchlings.

In Africa, over the course of two years, the Jouberts lived among the lions on Duba Island, an isolated strip of land in the Okavango Delta surrounded by flood waters. They shot 100 hours of footage, beginning each day at 4 a.m.

EDGE OF DANGER

Dangers included driving each morning in a vehicle with no doors or windshields through crocodile-infested waters before waiting up to 16 hours a day in 130-degree Fahrenheit heat (54 degrees Celsius) and mosquito-heavy conditions for the lions to spring to action.

"We've had lions charge right up to us and try and attack us, and it's usually because of something else. It's usually because a hunter has wounded this animal or a poacher has laid a snare. You can do your best but every now and again, things go wrong," said Beverly Joubert.

The Jouberts, who work alone in the field, say more perilous than the lions, have been elephants, the subject of some of their previous films and several attacks.

"We are sort of on the edge of danger all the time," Dereck said calmly, explaining they created a scale of 1 to 10 to assess each situation and the chance of dying. "There is something going on every single day...there are quite a few nine-and-a-halfs."

Mechanical mishaps are also risky, such as their jeep getting stuck in crocodile-infested waters or an attempt to land a small plane that goes awry when it is greeted by a herd of giraffes and flips over.

"Those are the situations that are often more trying than working with the lions, purely because we understand the lions," Beverly said.

The documentary has drawn critical acclaim with the New York Times calling it, "One of the most urgent and certainly among the most beautifully shot documentaries to hit the big screen in recent memory."

But the Jouberts aren't as interested in praise as much as change. "The draw is definitely to protect the wilderness and to the animals, to stop the poaching, to stop the safari hunting and stop the trade on all the animals," said Beverly.

National Geographic has announced that it will donate all profits from the film to a conservation effort known as the Big Cats initiative. Information can be found at thelastlions.com.

(editing by Bob Tourtellotte)

For anyone who wants to read up on any of this stuff, here are a few links that should keep you occupied for a while.

Papers at African Indaba

Dr. Rolf D. Baldus on Conservation

Dr. Rolf D. Baldus on Hunting

Dr. Rolf D. Baldus on the Selous

:: :: ::

Thanks Steve GI!!

Below is my favorite quote from the Joubert article. First off, Duba Island is not located in a hunting block! Secondly, Lion hunting was closed in Bots, in 2007. But of course, hunters have wounded lions that tried to attack them???? If this doesn't explain to you the reason we need to band together, pay-up, and fight the battle, what will??? Lions first, what's next???

"We've had lions charge right up to us and try and attack us, and it's usually because of something else. It's usually because a hunter has wounded this animal or a poacher has laid a snare. You can do your best but every now and again, things go wrong," said Beverly Joubert.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Below is my favorite quote from the Joubert article. First off, Duba Island is not located in a hunting block! Secondly, Lion hunting was closed in Bots, in 2007. But of course, hunters have wounded lions that tried to attack them???? If this doesn't explain to you the reason we need to band together, pay-up, and fight the battle, what will??? Lions first, what's next???

"We've had lions charge right up to us and try and attack us, and it's usually because of something else. It's usually because a hunter has wounded this animal or a poacher has laid a snare. You can do your best but every now and again, things go wrong," said Beverly Joubert.

That part jumped out at me as well...

Who says you can't conduct both photo and hunting in the same area where suitable? We are talking about maximizing revenue from a renewable resource through multi use approaches to conservation. In many, many places, both forms of wildlife utilization can be applied.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
Who says you can't conduct both photo and hunting in the same area where suitable? We are talking about maximizing revenue from a renewable resource through multi use approaches to conservation. In many, many places, both forms of wildlife utilization can be applied.

I don't think anyone is saying it can't be done where suitable. I do think people are saying most hunting blocks are unsuitable to minimally suitable for photo safaris when compared to the likes of Ngorogoro, the Serengeti, and Kruger.

Brett

We operate photographic and Hunting safaris. Out of Interest I just quickly calculated an average expenditure for a Photographic Group against a hunting group. This is with our company and might not be representitive of the entire industry, but I am sure a lot of operators would agree with it

Photographic $1300 income per person per booking.
Hunting $14210 income per person per booking.

Whilst The Photographic clients love to think their dollars are whats keeping the area safe, whats paying the Game scouts, whats funding staff salaries, in reality its hunting that pays the bills. Dont get me wrong, Photographic clients are a valuable section of our clientele but they simply just do not bring in as much return as hunting clients do. In addition, very few photographic clients will make long trips into remote areas whereas Hunters will. Its the Hunters $$$ that make these areas viable and give wildlife a value.

quote:

Originally posted by zimFrosty:
Its the Hunters $$$ that make these areas viable and give wildlife a value.

Its the hunters $$$ that make these (Insert: unsuitable for photographic)areas viable and give wildlife a value.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

quote:

Originally posted by zimFrosty:
Its the Hunters $$$ that make these areas viable and give wildlife a value.

Its the hunters $$$ that make these (Insert: unsuitable for photographic)areas viable and give wildlife a value.

Bwana - That's simply not true at ALL!!! Did you read the article above, have you personally been to many of these other places/hunting blocks/countries? Many of these places simply are not suitable for photographic safaris, period!!

Botswana is a great example. Outside the Delta, much of it is UGLY landscape, full of little but elephant, and poor photographic opportunity.

Secondly, photo people don't want to go to places where an expensive charter is involved, unless they drive for 3 straight days. In a place full of tsetse flies, and covered in Miombo woodlands, making game viewing, difficult.

Come on man, some of this is pretty simple stuff! I gave another example above, directly from ZAWA in Zambia. If at FULL capacity, photographic dollars would still generate 8 Billion Kwacha LESS THAN HUNTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

quote:

Originally posted by zimFrosty:
Its the Hunters $$$ that make these areas viable and give wildlife a value.

Its the hunters $$$ that make these (Insert: unsuitable for photographic)areas viable and give wildlife a value.

Bwana - That's simply not true at ALL!!! Did you read the article above, have you personally been to many of these other places/hunting blocks/countries? Many of these places simply are not suitable for photographic safaris, period!!

Botswana is a great example. Outside the Delta, much of it is UGLY landscape, full of little but elephant, and poor photographic opportunity.

Secondly, photo people don't want to go to places where an expensive charter is involved, unless they drive for 3 straight days. In a place full of tsetse flies, and covered in Miombo woodlands, making game viewing, difficult.

Come on man, some of this is pretty simple stuff! I gave another example above, directly from ZAWA in Zambia. If at FULL capacity, photographic dollars would still generate 8 Billion Kwacha LESS THAN HUNTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you guys are all in agreement.

:: :: ::

From Zambia - Looks as if my Lion has been taken away.

Next Lion I find in a snare I am going to film it's death and make a documentary of my own.

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

quote:

Originally posted by zimFrosty:
Its the Hunters $$$ that make these areas viable and give wildlife a value.

Its the hunters $$$ that make these (Insert: unsuitable for photographic)areas viable and give wildlife a value.

Bwana - That's simply not true at ALL!!! Did you read the article above, have you personally been to many of these other places/hunting blocks/countries? Many of these places simply are not suitable for photographic safaris, period!!

Botswana is a great example. Outside the Delta, much of it is UGLY landscape, full of little but elephant, and poor photographic opportunity.

Secondly, photo people don't want to go to places where an expensive charter is involved, unless they drive for 3 straight days. In a place full of tsetse flies, and covered in Miombo woodlands, making game viewing, difficult.

Come on man, some of this is pretty simple stuff! I gave another example above, directly from ZAWA in Zambia. If at FULL capacity, photographic dollars would still generate 8 Billion Kwacha LESS THAN HUNTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you guys are all in agreement.

:: :: ::

Yes, I think you are right. I mis-understood Bwana's message the first time, had to re-read it. SORRY BWANA!

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
From Zambia - Looks as if my Lion has been taken away.

Next Lion I find in a snare I am going to film it's death and make a documentary of my own.

GENTLEMEN & LADIES - This here is what I am talking about!!! Zambia reduced the lion quota from 65 to 45, why?? No sound scientific reason, Dr. White was never consulted, nor where the Zambia Outfitters!! Rumor is, someone from Botswana, gave someone at ZAWA a bribe (Lord knows that never happens in Africa), and next thing you know, 20 lions are taken off quota!!!

Fairgame - Correct me if I am wrong, but areas that are listed, or upgraded to PRIME, will keep their 3 lions, everyone else is reduced to 1, or ZERO, correct?? Now explain to the AR members how this will effect your ability to continue to operate Munyamadzi???

quote:

Yes, I think you are right. I mis-understood Bwana's message the first time, had to re-read it. SORRY BWANA!

Yes...I did the same thing in my mind at first glance...but...I think he means hunting even gives value to wildlife in the places photo safaris can never go.

So I think you are in agreement.

Aaron,

Here is what needs to happen. We need to get the group you and I have been talking about together. We need meet with Dr. White to get our facts straight and then try to arrange a meeting with the Zambian Wildlife Authority official in charge and argue our case WITH scientific data to support out voice.

quote:

Next Lion I find in a snare I am going to film it's death and make a documentary of my own.

This is exactly what needs to happen. While the people who want to stop hunting are doing their best via any means possible, we sit on the side and say that THEY need to give the facts, NO! You don't defeat an enemy by asking them to lay down their arms because the reason for war was specious. You HAVE to fight the war and fight hard! You have to use ANY means available to defeat them.

If the FACTS support hunting as a viable means of maintaining lion (or other) populations, AND protecting the vital habitat in which they live for the general survival of the ecosystem, then it is a matter of presenting the information in a way that garners support and not skepticism. A hunting video is not a documentary, no matter if facts are stated therein somewhere amongst the shooting. Stating that the meat of an elephant will be used locally for consumption does little to ameliorate the rather shocking scene of a brained elephant, or worse a hippo laying on the ground with blood gushing from its nostrils and a hunter hooping and hollering and high-fiving. These esoteric events exist for the hunter only; they cannot be used to convince someone who may be ambivalent that the death of the animal was a financial and gastronomic benefit to the area.

What needs to happen is to show case evidence where the cessation of hunting was the cause of a downturn in game populations, economic welfare or a general decline in the health of the ecosystem. It needs to have a spokesman who has clout, either scientific or celebrity who is willing to put themselves at the forefront of truth in order to make a difference. I respect people like John Banovich who, although he does not hunt, knows how hunting benefits the general health of the animals he loves to paint. Hunting needs a spokesman who is above reproach; I'm sorry but as classy as we all consider Boddington et al to be, that won't cut it with the general public. I recently saw an article in SC showing Tom Brokaw and MIchael Keaton at some fishing thing. Imagine (no matter what you think of Brokaw's politics) someone like Brokaw hosted a pro-hunting/logic/conservation documentary on the Botswana safari industry, replete with segments proving wrong those hunting detractors and showing the real face of Africa, not just an emotionally charged scene of a wounded or dead lion or elephant with his face cut off for the ivory etc. The general populous who anti-hunters target also need to be our targets. Neither anti- nor pro-hunting factions have enough members to maintain a permanent majority and so rely on the sentiments of the non-hunting, non-interested-until-i-saw-that-show-on-NG folks in order to move their agenda. Bribes notwithstanding.

Guys, I wish I had the means to make this type of documentary happen but alas I'm just a working stiff. But, with the lion stuff, the gloves are off and unless hunters and true conservationists elevate to the next level of positive persuasion, we can scream "LIES" until we are blue in the face but it won;t make a damn bit of difference. The bar has been raised and unless we raise it even higher, it's not looking good in the long run for hunting around the world.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
From Zambia - Looks as if my Lion has been taken away.

That certainly ranks as probably the worst news I'll get today.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Next Lion I find in a snare I am going to film it's death and make a documentary of my own.

This is exactly what needs to happen. While the people who want to stop hunting are doing their best via any means possible, we sit on the side and say that THEY need to give the facts, NO! You don't defeat an enemy by asking them to lay down their arms because the reason for war was specious. You HAVE to fight the war and fight hard! You have to use ANY means available to defeat them.

If the FACTS support hunting as a viable means of maintaining lion (or other) populations, AND protecting the vital habitat in which they live for the general survival of the ecosystem, then it is a matter of presenting the information in a way that garners support and not skepticism. A hunting video is not a documentary, no matter if facts are stated therein somewhere amongst the shooting. Stating that the meat of an elephant will be used locally for consumption does little to ameliorate the rather shocking scene of a brained elephant, or worse a hippo laying on the ground with blood gushing from its nostrils and a hunter hooping and hollering and high-fiving. These esoteric events exist for the hunter only; they cannot be used to convince someone who may be ambivalent that the death of the animal was a financial and gastronomic benefit to the area.

What needs to happen is to show case evidence where the cessation of hunting was the cause of a downturn in game populations, economic welfare or a general decline in the health of the ecosystem. It needs to have a spokesman who has clout, either scientific or celebrity who is willing to put themselves at the forefront of truth in order to make a difference. I respect people like John Banovich who, although he does not hunt, knows how hunting benefits the general health of the animals he loves to paint. Hunting needs a spokesman who is above reproach; I'm sorry but as classy as we all consider Boddington et al to be, that won't cut it with the general public. I recently saw an article in SC showing Tom Brokaw and MIchael Keaton at some fishing thing. Imagine (no matter what you think of Brokaw's politics) someone like Brokaw hosted a pro-hunting/logic/conservation documentary on the Botswana safari industry, replete with segments proving wrong those hunting detractors and showing the real face of Africa, not just an emotionally charged scene of a wounded or dead lion or elephant with his face cut off for the ivory etc. The general populous who anti-hunters target also need to be our targets. Neither anti- nor pro-hunting factions have enough members to maintain a permanent majority and so rely on the sentiments of the non-hunting, non-interested-until-i-saw-that-show-on-NG folks in order to move their agenda. Bribes notwithstanding.

Guys, I wish I had the means to make this type of documentary happen but alas I'm just a working stiff. But, with the lion stuff, the gloves are off and unless hunters and true conservationists elevate to the next level of positive persuasion, we can scream "LIES" until we are blue in the face but it won;t make a damn bit of difference. The bar has been raised and unless we raise it even higher, it's not looking good in the long run for hunting around the world.

VERY WELL SAID!!! Fact is, we are working on a plan for that video/documentary as we speak.

John Stossel might not be a bad choice either. I recall him doing a piece on the farming of Tigers in order to fill the tiger bone "needs" so wild Tigers wouldn't be poached. He seemed to understand the whole "value" of wildlife issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
From Zambia - Looks as if my Lion has been taken away.

That certainly ranks as probably the worst news I'll get today.

Frostbit,

You will be comforted by the knowledge that I am am not selling you what I do not have.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
From Zambia - Looks as if my Lion has been taken away.

Next Lion I find in a snare I am going to film it's death and make a documentary of my own.

GENTLEMEN & LADIES - This here is what I am talking about!!! Zambia reduced the lion quota from 65 to 45, why?? No sound scientific reason, Dr. White was never consulted, nor where the Zambia Outfitters!! Rumor is, someone from Botswana, gave someone at ZAWA a bribe (Lord knows that never happens in Africa), and next thing you know, 20 lions are taken off quota!!!

Fairgame - Correct me if I am wrong, but areas that are listed, or upgraded to PRIME, will keep their 3 lions, everyone else is reduced to 1, or ZERO, correct?? Now explain to the AR members how this will effect your ability to continue to operate Munyamadzi???

Will reply later but as far as I know no operator here in Zambia can show you proof of Lion on their quota?

quote:

Stating that the meat of an elephant will be used locally for consumption does little to ameliorate the rather shocking scene of a brained elephant, or worse a hippo laying on the ground with blood gushing from its nostrils and a hunter hooping and hollering and high-fiving. These esoteric events exist for the hunter only; they cannot be used to convince someone who may be ambivalent that the death of the animal was a financial and gastronomic benefit to the area.

Actually...those productions...as much as we all like them...actually hurt our case with the public.

When "the war" actually begins...and we start trying to match the anti's productions tit-for-tat by making our own documentory's...just like you now see the kittens with draining eyes and puppies that are skin and bones with the little captions above their heads saying: "am I going to die today"?...you WILL start to see similar commercials on TV with clips from hunting videos with dead lions and folks celebrating like a full-back that just scored the winning TD in the super-bowl.

Those video's will come back to haunt us.

I know some folks don't like to hear that but...mark my words...you will see it.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
From Zambia - Looks as if my Lion has been taken away.

Next Lion I find in a snare I am going to film it's death and make a documentary of my own.

GENTLEMEN & LADIES - This here is what I am talking about!!! Zambia reduced the lion quota from 65 to 45, why?? No sound scientific reason, Dr. White was never consulted, nor where the Zambia Outfitters!! Rumor is, someone from Botswana, gave someone at ZAWA a bribe (Lord knows that never happens in Africa), and next thing you know, 20 lions are taken off quota!!!

Fairgame - Correct me if I am wrong, but areas that are listed, or upgraded to PRIME, will keep their 3 lions, everyone else is reduced to 1, or ZERO, correct?? Now explain to the AR members how this will effect your ability to continue to operate Munyamadzi???

Will reply later but as far as I know no operator here in Zambia can show you proof of Lion on their quota?

However there are 45 Lions to be allocated.

quote:

Actually...those productions...as much as we all like them...actually hurt our case with the public.

YEs, it is very hard to convince a non-hunter that the kill is not the main part of the hunt and the hunter takes no great pleasure in the kill when such activities pervade.

quote:

Those video's will come back to haunt us.

You and I agree fully, my friend. I have often stated of these videos that we are paying out the rope from which our necks will hang...