Ladies and Gentlemen,

I received the following message, and would like to give him an answer as he requested.

How would you answer such a question?
Please be constructive, and keep your answers polite and civil. That is the only way we can sway those in the middle that we are not doing anything wrong.

Getting into rude arguments only goes to strengthen the opinions against us.


================I am currently an art student, and was looking for visual references of
leopards. I was appalled to see the pictures that were a result of my
search, images such as hunters standing over dead lions, beers, deer, or
giraffes. I feel that the loss of these creatures to gaming is a horrible
loss and are not worth the outcome. I do not feel that it is right for me to
tell you what you are doing is wrong, but I will say that it is a waste of
life.



I would like it if I could here your side of the topic because I feel I have
grown up in a very liberal area and would like to hear about peoples
different views on the topic you can get back to me at xxxxxxxxxxxx
thank you for reading this message

Saeed, I would start by explaining to the person why it is not a waste of a life. That because that life was taken, there is mioney generated to conserve the rest of that individueals population. Tell them that normally about 0.5-2% of an population are established as a hunting quota.
And that it really is not gaming, but something totally different.

I recently met a girl, that was totaly opposed to hunting, as she "loved nature very much." I asked her if she remembered the first time she was in love, at high school. I asked her if she rememberd the boy's name, where he lived, what class he was in, what his dad did, basically every available deatil about him. She remembered most, or at least said she used toi know. I then asked her to tell me anything about nature, anything at all. Latin names of plants, animlas, birds, how they fit together in groups families, even what interaction there is between them, or even jsut what eat what. She knew nothing. I then asked her how come she found out everything she can about the boy that she fancied, but not aboiut nature which she said she loved? She did not have an answer.

To someone that has had no exposure to hunting they only see a dead animal in the images of hunters with their trophies. They are so removed from our human roots as hunter/gathers that they don't even consider that the hambuger they ate yesterday was a living breathing mammal before they put ketchup on it.

Hunting and particularly trophy hunting in today's world provides not only meat for consumption but poors millions of dollars into the economies of 3rd world countries through jobs and purchase of comsumer goods. Each safari camp may provide 12-20 jobs for people that would otherwise have no jobs.

Trophy hunting also is the best way to preserve habitat and aniamls. Without hunting and the revenue from it being destributed among the people the wild places would have no value and soon be devoid of game and the habitat destroyed to accommodate livedtock and subsistance farming.

Finally I just like hunting and I can't believe given the chance that most humans would not embrace it if they could get beyond their prejudice based on falsehoods put forth by groups such as PETA.

Sincerely,

Mark H.Young

/

Good One Karl.

Saeed,

We have to manage animal numbers that is just a fact we as people are taking all their space so why not push and boost economics in a poor country where hunting is allowed at te same time.

Lost cause as this is analogous to trying to argue someone out of their faith. I've tried, and trust me, it's an exercise in futility. Maybe find some literature that supports the hunters' point of view and point her in that direction. A direct argument will only be fruitless here.

I know a bad one when I see it, believe me as I'm in law school and am being trained for this junk.

Dear --------,
We live in an imperfect world, where death is a part of life itself. Everyday people wear leather shoes and clothing, makeup, use medicines, eat meat, or vegetables like soy products, build houses and shopping malls and roads, and engage in countless other activities that cause the deaths of animals.
Planting soy has destroyed bird populations with the pesticides used and many medicines are derived from lab animals. I think the other examples are obvious enough to not need explanations as to how they effect wildlife.

Hunters as a group do more to preserve the wildlife population and all the species as a whole than any other group on this earth and that is a fact. The greatest amounts of money for the preservation of wildlife is provided by hunters, the greatest expanses of habitat are saved from human encroachment by hunters, the greatest effort against poachers who kill indiscriminately is made with funds provided by huunters and the very people who face these poachers, often in armed combat, are more than likely hunters themselves. The most important national parks in the USA were created by a famous and enthusiastic hunter by the name of Theodore Roosevelt.

All of this however is secondary reasoning because the gist of the matter is another. I am fairly certain that most who object to hunting do so not because they have considered what the future of the different species of wildlife will be as a whole but because they object on a viseral and emotional level to the individual death itself.
This is the true matter at hand.
On this I hold that the instinct to hunt is deeply ingrained in some and not so deeply in others. Many who are possesed of this drive are loving fathers and husbands, take time and effort to help our fellow men, are concerned by and take action against injustice where we encounter it, would probably be among the first to come to your aid in the form of a law enforcement officer, or a Doctor or a fireman were you to need it. In short MEN OF ACTION. I do not object to those who choose not to kill animals themselves directly. I understand that they prefer to distance themselves from that. But I also know that if the person most distanced from the death that brings life, were to see his or her children in need of food, and that food were at hand in the form of wild game, that persons instincts would awaken. They would rejoice in the game fields set before them and feel the great importance of preserving those game fields, and they would understand that there was no evil in this individual death. For ultimately we all go the same road.

One might also point out that hunters are also the protectors of the animal population as they have great value. In places like Kenya the great animal population has greatly decreased since hunting has been outlawed. There is no money coming in to pay for game programs. Because of hunting Texas has more Black Buck Antelope than there native India. In countries where there is legal hunting there is a large population of animals. The United States has more Wild Turkeys, more deer, and more Antelope than in the past 100 years and maybe more that ever since the European arrived over 500 years ago.

/

Have him go read that latest National Geographic article. Then follow with how many wild animals would be in Africa if the money wasn't in hunting... and how little money comes in from photo safaris (that generally stick to the national parks anyhow).

There are a lot of reasons to support hunting. Most hunters feel very connected with the naturual environment and become stewards of it.

It is much more tactile then pictures.

quote:

The problem with any argument that claims that hunting preserves or creates the financial means to conserve wildlife can be countered quite simply by stating that if we were so bent on conservation why not simply donate the money without the killing and the same purpose would be met.

No I hunt because I'm man, it's part of my humanity and ancestry that drives that desire, quite simply man was a hunter and still in his soul is a hunter before he became a farmer, plain and simple, not the desire to conserve or to be politically correct.

No the act of hunting is a clear, basic, raw desire to persue and finally kill the animal, whether for food or simply for the sake of the persuit, from that in my humanity I derive satisfaction and I make no excuses for it.

Sad was the day when man was forced by circumstance to root in the dirt for tubers like a pig.

I have to agree on that

Saeed

I have two documents that could help, but do not know how to insert a doc onto a post. I will send them direct to you by e:mail and you can post them here.

Also, take a look at the numbers on this web page!

Global Slaughter Stats

This is a geat article from National Geographic - a publication which otherwise can't be described as "pro hunting", "pro conservation" would be more like it. It explains hunting beautifully in terms of conservation, passion and history.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-11/hunters/poole-text.html

- mike

P.S. I guess this is the article JohnHunt also referred to??

i don't know if i got this quote from someone on this forum or another, but this basically sums it up for me, and i think i would like this on my tombstone..

.. and, in the end, when I can no longer draw the bow or watch the arrow embark its flight; When alas I possess only the spirit of the hunter, I will hunt... If only in my dreams... because the hunt is born amidst my soul, and I... I am a hunter.

doesn't deserve a reply - just some guy trying to start a fight

While I don't think you will ever change this type of persons mindset you might ask WHY he is studying art. Art produces nothing of physical worth,only esthetic appreciation which is of course purely mental. It does little if anything to advance society. In some cases what is considered 'art' is totally obscene in the minds of most people. If he can answer this question satisfactorily then ask him to apply the same devotion to the study of hunting and see what conclusion he obtains. This ,of course, is a futile gesture as you will never really change this mindset.

Saeed,

Usually, buried within the thoughts such as expressed by your correspondent, is the mistake of logic that says "if it were not for that hunter that beutiful animal would still be alive" in their mind the animal lives forever. This totally ignores the truth that the Creator ordained that all life on earth dies. Reality is that most animals are prey, even lions at the end of their lives feed the hyenas. So when a hunter kills game, he is simply the successful predator, and he does not decide if the animal lives or dies, the hunter simply participates in determining when the animal dies.

The idea of "waste" is easily refutable (see JudgeG's post for example) and of course all of the practical aspects of hunting are on the side of hunters. With a very few "antis", and quite a few fence sitters, this makes a difference, witness WWF's participation in the conservancies in Namibia. These facts need to be presented.

But, what most folks who sound like your correspondent actually object to is that a hunter "enjoys" killing. This is a "feeling" or "belief" that can rarely be rooted out by logic and common sense. The only response you can give (and it will probably be inadquate) is to try to explain your own feelings and beliefs, and you had better examine your own beliefs very carefully before you try to explain them to a non-hunter. My own thoughts are that I don't get joy from killing, what I get is the fulfillment of the drive that was "hardwired" in my being, a legacy from my ancestors back to the beginning. The act of hunting is most important by far, but the kill, though not for every hunt, is essential to close the circle, to fulfill my place in nature.

A bit long winded and esoteric I suppose, and it won't help you with a true anti, we, Esau's descendants, are just wired differently.

Because it is a renewable resource. And dying by bullet is more humane than being eaten alive by a crocodile.

Send the link to the National Geographic article with no comment and leave it at that.

All good comments so far. A few other thoughts,
-Thank him or her for asking and TRYING to see the other viewpoint, most people don't care about the other point of view.
- There was a picture of three African boys standing by a kill with knives posted within the last month. The hunters kill was some of the only nutrition they got.
- Quote prices for hunts, and the value this brings to the communities where there is hunting. This also gives the people a reason to protect the wildlife, as it is a source of income.
- Try to describe how hunting is more than just killing, it has to do with what is ingrained within in, as other posters have said.

More thoughts to come.

Sounds like a set-up to me. However, why don't you refer them to Mr. Banovich, the artist, who BOTH hunts/kills AND paints extraordinary paintings of African wildlife? Perhaps he could give them an acceptable answer.

I only WISH I was eloquent enough to capture the sum total of hunting with mere words. I am humbled by those who have taken a shot at it here in their varied replies.

I would offer that the results of the internet search (described in the initial query) illustrates an important point - there are few people who are not hunters who seek out animals in the wild to take pictures. Others are not concerned enough, or passionate enough, or closely enough tied to nature to spend the money, make the arrangements, and take the time...

I find it ironic that the art student chose to experience a leopard by viewing pictures on a computer monitor rather than experience the beauty of animals in the wild - a microcosm of the reason people can't or don't understand realities like hunting.

Like so many other pursuits, its easy to condemn that which you don't know.

Hunting over the ions has been the inherited gift of man as we were born hunters and gathers, its inbred into many of us more so that others..

As a result of that we as hunters have gone to great lengths to preserve the animals for this very reason, that we can hunt them, utilize them and appreciate them.

To not harvest, yes kill, (lets don't sugar coat it,) these animals would allow for over population, thus over grazing, thus desease, and total starvation of all the animals..The grazers starve, and when the grazers starve the preditors also starve, its a cycle..Nature is a cruel killer. The world is not big enough to allow them to breed willy nilly..They only have a certain amount of space on this earth, man has the rest. We in the USA could not live with the original number of 8 million bison running around in our cities. Africa cannot live with millions of elephants...

The donated money from Safari Companies and the rent on concessions such as in Tanzania also support the game dept. and fight the good fight against the Ivory trade and general poaching.

This brings up another related subject and that is have you ever seen a bull elk fall to the ground from starvation in the mountains of the Pacific N. W., his skin will be loose and it will freeze to the ground, he will pound his head on the frozen to near death while the wolves and coyotes eat his hindquarter off, not a pretty thing to watch, I suggest a bullet is a better demise for such a proud animal, and the use of his meat to feed someone is a plus to our cause.

This young man has based all his assumption on nothing more than pure emotion, however he seems intelligent enough to ask for our opinnion, for that I give him credit..

In todays world the enemy of the wildlife is not the hunter, but instead the encrochment of man, his farms, his cities, those things that use up his habitat..

The sale of hunting licenses and Govt. fees etc. supports this wildlife so that he may be here for our children and their children to hunt, photograph or just observe, were it not for the hunter, all wildlife would have perished many years ago. It was the hunter who saved the Bison in the USA, the Rhino in Africa, and all the huntable game in the world plus many animals and birds..It was not Green Peace or Friends of animals who collect many dollars and pay big salaries and in general rip off the masses...

I see these folks that live in their ivory towers in liberal places, that donate great amounts of money to stop hunting, they carry their little flags and posters, tie themselves to trees and make an idiot of themselves in general and they do have an effect on the young and uninformed.

THESE SAME PEOPLE, many in my homestate of Idaho, in the Sun Valley area, are from California, and New York and other liberal states, build there multi million dollar homes in the very middle of the traditional winter feeding grounds of the native elk..The herds that were once in the millions are now at 800 from encroachment by the very activists that claim to be their friend..Beware of the wolf in Sheeps clothing comes to mind..

Hipocracy is rampant in the liberal communities when it comes to wildlife, they thrive on it as long as it does not effect them personally, but when it requires sacrifice on their part it fades into nothingness and its time for the hairdresser or the spa..

So young man, it is apparant that you are concerned, my suggestion is that you contact your local game managment people, visit with them and make it a point to research this subject as I have only scratched the surface, and join our cause, you will be welcomed as anyone that is interested is our friend, not our enemy..

Welcome to my world.

Easy answer:

"If we don't hunt, then the terrorists have won".

Lots of good responses here.

I would caution against simply asserting that we hunt only because we are human and therefore predatory and driven to do so. That is certainly part of it, but not the whole story.

If that were the whole story, we would just hunt all game to extinction. We don't.

Hunting is good conservation. It is an activity that fosters the sustainable use of a natural resource - wild game animals and their habitat - by giving them economic value. Hunting conserves and ensures the survival and continued existence of that resource more than any other wild animal-centered activity.

Hunting also benefits thousands upon thousands of non-game animals, song birds, butterflies and other fauna that are not hunted but that depend on the same habitat as game animals.

Hunting is not wasteful. The old saying goes that very few wild animals die of old age, and that is true. Predators take many of them while young or crippled or in old age.

Men are predators, like other predators, but we are not mindless predators who kill game to extinction. We do not typically kill young animals. And of those we do take, we take only a sustainable number.

And the game we take is either eaten by us or by other wild animals.

Also, as others have said, death by a hunter's bullet is far more "humane" - or sudden and less painful - than being eaten alive, mangled or drowned by other animal predators.

I agree that the National Geographic article on this subject is an excellent piece and ought to go a long way to explaining the benefits of hunting to those who don't understand it.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time as they usually have already made up their mind. How do you really know this is a young person who is actually trying to broaden his mind and not a provocateur? This kind of stuff has happened over and over in the past. Hunters' quotes are and will be "edited" to suit the publisher or site's pov.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I would simply defer any comment !

There is no argument how thoughtful or well researched in fact that can be produce to counter this well planned trap. This person is masking her true identity and purpose with a seemingly sweet and almost naive approach, do not be fooled ! And above all do not get into the ring with the likes of her, you will regret it.

It is fact that there are those who are against, those who are for and those who are indifferent to our purpose as hunters. We will never sway those against, all we can hope to do is to educate the indifferent!

+1 Nothing you say will change an anti hunter's mind. Don't waste your time.

SCIENCE IS WITH US !!! Give this person the science behind sport

hunting which is controlled by animal biologists studying the numbers of

the beasts, the environment, expected weather, etc. The facts are with

US! A computer would assess all the data and show an objective person

that the legitimate hunters are a huge part of the system that keeps
these creatures from going extinct.

Truth is nothing you say, probably no amount of logic, facts or reasoning that can be given to the young man to sway his views. You may have to get real sneaky on him, you might have to take him hunting to get him to see the light . Two days of a good hunting trip will easily undo 20 yrs of PC brainwashing.

I would agree with what has already been noted above as to the positive explanations of the why and howcum of hunting ---that said -- I would be extremely reluctant to provide any personally authored explanations -- as your writings could wind up in places or pages that could be utilized for other reasons. Unfortunately that is the world we live in.

I think if he was really already set in his ways, he wouldn't ask and he wouldn't care what we had to say. A few more issues.
-PAC hunts. When animals get out of control and become problems for farmers/people in general, would you rather have the gov't use taxpayer money to shoot the animal or would you rather have a hunter pay to shoot the problem animal?
-Depending on the species hunted, the desired animal can be an older male that no longer breeds and killing won't have an affect on the population.
-In many of the species hunted, the males are specifically targeted. Like above, killing a male is likely to have little impact as another male can and will easily take his place in breeding the females.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnAir:
Dear --------,
We live in an imperfect world, where death is a part of life itself. Everyday people wear leather shoes and clothing, makeup, use medicines, eat meat, or vegetables like soy products, build houses and shopping malls and roads, and engage in countless other activities that cause the deaths of animals.
Planting soy has destroyed bird populations with the pesticides used and many medicines are derived from lab animals. I think the other examples are obvious enough to not need explanations as to how they effect wildlife.

Hunters as a group do more to preserve the wildlife population and all the species as a whole than any other group on this earth and that is a fact. The greatest amounts of money for the preservation of wildlife is provided by hunters, the greatest expanses of habitat are saved from human encroachment by hunters, the greatest effort against poachers who kill indiscriminately is made with funds provided by huunters and the very people who face these poachers, often in armed combat, are more than likely hunters themselves. The most important national parks in the USA were created by a famous and enthusiastic hunter by the name of Theodore Roosevelt.

All of this however is secondary reasoning because the gist of the matter is another. I am fairly certain that most who object to hunting do so not because they have considered what the future of the different species of wildlife will be as a whole but because they object on a viseral and emotional level to the individual death itself.
This is the true matter at hand.
On this I hold that the instinct to hunt is deeply ingrained in some and not so deeply in others. Many who are possesed of this drive are loving fathers and husbands, take time and effort to help our fellow men, are concerned by and take action against injustice where we encounter it, would probably be among the first to come to your aid in the form of a law enforcement officer, or a Doctor or a fireman were you to need it. In short MEN OF ACTION. I do not object to those who choose not to kill animals themselves directly. I understand that they prefer to distance themselves from that. But I also know that if the person most distanced from the death that brings life, were to see his or her children in need of food, and that food were at hand in the form of wild game, that persons instincts would awaken. They would rejoice in the game fields set before them and feel the great importance of preserving those game fields, and they would understand that there was no evil in this individual death. For ultimately we all go the same road.

The above is a very well thought out post, and it is 100% accurate in my opinion.

The only thing I would add to it is: The game people of all the countries in Africa, and elsewhere as well, do surveys on the populations of all game species, and set the number of animals of each species that can be taken without adversely effecting the species. These permits for the animals are sold at auction to the Safari operators. In turn, he charges a trophy fee for each of the animals on his license. This bag limit is to utilize the renewable recourse to avoid over use of the limited habitat. That over use of habitat by higher populations directly affects the non-game animals as well. Added to that the money generated by the sale of these permits pays for game rangers, to guard against professional market poachers, and the meat from hunting, is most often utilized by the local people, who compete with this wild life for space, and resources.

The fact that, now, the game is worth something to the local people, they are prone to protect it, by turning the poachers in to the rangers.

One must understand, the people of Africa, in many cases are protein starved, and that meat is a God send for them. Where in this case the excess game animals generate the funds, food for the locals, and temporary employment. In the case of the abolitionist’s method, the animals simply become meat, to be poached to extinction, regardless whether they are viable game animals, or endangered species, which to a hungry man feeding his family, is simply MEAT, that he needs, and from an animal who eats his crops every night. To him he is simply riding himself of one problem, but removing a crop raider, and helping his family, by utilizing the meat. Safari hunting is the salvation of ALL wildlife, not only game animals. Where the safari is far the better of the two concepts, for the wildlife continued existence, it also generates funds for the parks, and game protectors, where the abolitionist way protects nothing, and leaves the locals out of the loop, and cost the parks, and game people to try to stem the tide of poachers, who kill everything, and adhere to no bag limit, or species protection!

Besides all that man is a hunter by species, and is an omnivore and is simply doing what man was designed to do, like any other animal. If animals have no monitary value, and compete for space, and resourses with people, the adjustment will be made in favor of people, every time! Because of hunters, there millions of square miles of habitat available to all animals, not just game animals, paied for, and guarded by hunters, and game departments, to maintane a renewable ballance, for all wildlife.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Palos:
Saeed

I have two documents that could help, but do not know how to insert a doc onto a post. I will send them direct to you by e:mail and you can post them here.

Also, take a look at the numbers on this web page!

Global Slaughter Stats

..............Wow ,, Thats alot of dead animals ...........Over 10 million Buffalo ,,,, Who does that ????............................If you let someone kill for you ,so that your daily meat comes from blood getting on someone else's hand ...You arn,t much of an active part of humanity .....The person who puts meat on the table or in the cooling shed,, kills to give life .....Since we now live in such an urbane world,,some people hunt game animals to fulfill the need in them selves to do this ancient act .......It is a pampered and cared for person who does not "smell the blood " before they smell the food .........Most trophy hunting is just a highly glorified form of vanity ...,.,.,Many are the reasons to justify it,,, but it is vanity ........It is rich men,s and womens play .............................However unlike Basket ball , cricket , rugby ,bungy jumping and gambling, to name a few , It does serve to insure the hunted species continued existence .......And it,s a tremendous amount of fun ... ..It is also the most humane death these animals will encounter ........Making a Humane kill is what spereates the best hunters from the games man ,, such as bow hunters and small bore big game hunters ,,,,,,,,,....And is an example of how man was created in the image and likeness of God ,,not just a different strain of protoplasm than a hyena ,,,,,,,,,,,,

My standard answer to someone that asks "How could you shoot animals?" is "It's good for them!" This ususally jars them out of their canned diatribe on cruelty to animals and suprises them into asking what I mean by that statement. That's when you can begin communicating the benefits to wildlife that we as hunters provide. Until that happens, all they have at the tip of their tongue is the standard PETA BS. You need to jar them into thought.

Saeed, these responses should be put into the "REASONS WE HUNT" can, and opened whenever needed.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnAir:

On this I hold that the instinct to hunt is deeply ingrained in some and not so deeply in others.

I agree with this theory, it might not be the answere he can understand or will be able to comphrend, i cant comphrened why some chose certain "Lifestyles". Back to my point I have been a "hunter" since i was 6 throwing rocks at birds. I dont like killing things at all but I have some primal instinct to hunt.

I don't really think I could add much. I just find it very refreshing and I'm rather impressed that someone who is admittedly "anti-hunting" to actually want to hear the other side. I do hope it was addressed with facts presented with tact and respect.

"I then asked her how come she found out everything she can about the boy that she fancied, but not aboiut nature which she said she loved? She did not have an answer."
Well done and puts in evidence that most of these people are enamored of an ilussion. Their idea of the natural world is a fantasy.

"Sad was the day when man was forced by circumstance to root in the dirt for tubers like a pig."
LOL That's a very good one.

"But, what most folks who sound like your correspondent actually object to is that a hunter "enjoys" killing"
Ain't it the truth. They want to argue from this position, and try to present us as evil.

"I find it ironic that the art student chose to experience a leopard by viewing pictures on a computer monitor rather than experience the beauty of animals in the wild - a microcosm of the reason people can't or don't understand realities like hunting."
So true and put in evidence by several of the coments on this thread. They really don't know what they are fighting for. It is all emotion and zero reasoning.

"If we don't hunt, then the terrorists have won".
LMAO


"SCIENCE IS WITH US !!! Give this person the science behind sport

hunting which is controlled by animal biologists studying the numbers of

the beasts, the environment, expected weather, etc. The facts are with

US! A computer would assess all the data and show an objective person

that the legitimate hunters are a huge part of the system that keeps

these creatures from going extinct."

I think we have to always argue from this base and reject the argument that the hunter is evil because he likes to kill. I think most hunters do like to kill. I know I do. It is not the most important part of hunting, not even close to the most important , but definitely indispensible to the whole experience. I make no apologies or denials.
Hunting is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. It is right for people and it is right for the animals. Wether or not I enjoy doing it is really irrelevant to the argument of wether or not it should be done and basically nobodys business but mine.
It is arrogance for non hunters to pass judgement. They should be forced to stick to the facts.



"Where the safari is far the better of the two concepts, for the wildlife existence, .................. where the abolitionist way protects nothing,"
There it is. Not a doubt could exist in a rational mind.

Hi Saeed
Refer the guy to this web site forum
http://www.africanconservation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcbo...orumID21&archive=yes

It is "African Conservation Forums"
He can then read about the debate between hunting and conserrvation.

Here is the text of a post that pretty well says it all from my point of view.

http://www.africanconservation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcbo...39&forum=DCForumID21

Dr. Rolf Baldus presented a paper with this title during the international conference �Can African Wildlife Survive Without Hunt-ing?�. in Pretoria on April 4th, 2003. The conference was organized by Jan van der Walt of Game & Hunt, an independent monthly publica-tion promoting the sustainable utilization of South Africa�s natural resources. For details about subscription browse their website http://www.wildlifehunt.co.za or contact Jan van der Walt at janlouis@wildlifehunt.co.za, fax to 012-320-5561.

�Can African Wildlife Survive without Hunting?� � is a question discussed at many campfires and conference tables. Most hunters would answer with a clear �Of course, African wildlife cannot survive without hunting�.

South Africa is a wonderful example for proving this point. 5.000 exempt game ranches have brought wildlife back to places where it has not been for a very long time. And the motivation for many, if not most of these ranch owners, is hunting. Wildlife species that were nearly extinct, like the white rhino or the bontebok, are abundant again - to a great extent because they are hunted. As soon as Tanzanian officials were allowed by their Government to visit your country, 1993, I took the Director of Wildlife and the Chief Warden of the world�s largest game reserve, the Selous, down to South Africa to visit Pilanesberg - formerly degraded land without ecological value, now a National Park plus hunting reserve. To us this seemed to be an impressive example where the whole range of uses was presented on a relatively small stretch of land � wilderness, simple campsites, luxury hotels and hunting. Different types of use complementing each other.

If South Africa would impose a hunting ban, as some African countries have, a great share of this wildlife would disappear in the near future.

However, the majority of mankind is of different opinion. For them African wildlife cannot survive with hunting. If we analyse the many newspaper articles, TV programs and scien-tific and semi-scientific and unscientific papers appearing on this topic, it will prove my point. If you participate in one of the huge international conferences where issues which touch you all, which make you earn money or lose money, are being decided � like whether South Africa is allowed to sell its ivory, export its rhino trophies or increase its leopard quota - you will have to come up with very good arguments to make your point, namely that hunting can support conservation. You are up against masses of well-spoken scientists and of civil ser-vants with directives from their Governments. You are up against animal welfare pressure groups, which spend every year millions of dollars to advertise their anti-use views.

You would be astonished, to know how many Government institutions in the European Union study at length the ways and practices of hunting in Africa. There are confer-ences and round tables with representatives from different sectors of society. Books, articles and position papers are written. Bureaucrats in their dozens shed their sweat in order to look into a wide range of issues whether it is hunting leop-ards with dogs, crocodile quotas, lion hunting or whether country x was allowed to have a certain elephant hunted. In Germany there was a court case, which confirmed the Government�s position that the CITES authorities have the right to evaluate every individual case of importing an Appendix I trophy. It is legal to import a pair of tusks from the Tanzanian Selous, but the import of a pair of trophy tusks from the Longido area in Tanzania was refused, despite the Government of Tanzania having given CITES permission. German civil servants provided a scientific opinion that � at least in their view - the particular bull at Longido was indispensable for elephant reproduction in Amboseli in Kenya.

Depending on the respective Government some of these people might to a certain extent be prejudiced and be pro- or, more often, anti-hunting, but as a general rule most of these civil servants search for facts. They need them in order to take decisions - decisions that influence hunting enterprises in Africa a great deal. They look for answers to the question Can African wildlife survive with hunting?
They may indeed have good reasons to ask this question. Taking South Africa as an example: The barren land where Pilanesberg was founded, the farms where wildlife was introduced by game ranchers � at some time in the past there was plenty of game existing there, there were some of the biggest animal migrations the world has ever seen.

Hunters exterminated this wildlife in a few decades. After Frederick Cour-tenay Selous had landed in Port Elizabeth in 1871 he wrote into his diary during his trip northwards: �One might look as well for game in Hyde Park�. Wildlife had become scarce in South Africa by then, not only in the Cape, but also farther north in the Boer republics. We may say that the hunters who were responsible for the extinction had different motivations and were living in different times and conditions than the hunters now. Nevertheless, for the non-hunting observer they still were hunters.

However, I do not want to write about South Africa. My personal experience is East Africa, in particular Tanzania, where I had the privilege to work with wildlife for over ten years. It still is the Africa where wildlife roams in the wilderness, and the game ranch is unknown, where it is even illegal, where the people live side by side with dangerous big game. They are not kept separate by fences. Wildlife does not have to be controlled in numbers by culling, as is necessary in fenced game ranches or parks. Wildlife contributes significantly to the economy of the country, be it in the form of photographic tourism or in the form of hunting. The country has a tourist-hunting sector that in the last ten years has produced approximately 2.300 lions, 2.500 leopards, 5.000 buffaloes and 400 elephants, not to mention antelopes and other game.

With such off-takes, and for most species and most places the quotas are still sustainable, the country still seems to have quite a bit of wildlife � despite hunting or because of hunting?

At the same time the country has areas with spectacular concentrations of wildlife that are not hunted at all. Two million wildebeest, zebras and antelopes and 4 000 lions roam the Serengeti National Park. The country�s highest concentra-tion of elephants lives in the Tarangire National Park. The world�s largest buffalos (a 64-inch buffalo was killed by lions recently) occur in Lake Manyara National Park. These thriving wildlife populations are a living proof that wildlife in Africa can survive without hunting.

Therefore, I can say: Yes, wildlife can survive without hunting! In the Africa of today � characterized by overpopulation, threats of all kind to the environment, illegal wildlife uses, a growing unsustainable bush meat industry � in this Africa of today, such no-hunting reserves are important important to preserve bio-diversity.
This is by the way nothing new at all. A keen hunter from Germany, Hermann von Wissmann, who happened to be the Governor of German East Africa, established the first two protected areas in Africa with similar arguments. This was 1896, and he called them �hunting reserves�, which indicated that no hunting was to take place there. Even at that time people were concerned that hunting might eliminate wildlife.

If we look around in Africa between the Sahara and the Limpopo, we find hundreds of such National Parks. Some countries have put up to 10 % of their land under such strict protection. In September there will be the World Parks Congress in Durban where the World Conservation Union ex-pects more than 2 000 participants and where many of these will demand that many more of these National Parks should be created in Africa, so that in their opinion at least some African wildlife can survive.

Take my host country, Tanzania. Just recently a major piece of a hunting reserve was cut off and added to the Katavi National Park. I am presently involved in transforming the Saadani Game Reserve along the coast into a National Park. It will be the 13th National Park of Tanzania, and more are in the pipeline.

But our look around in sub-Saharan Africa also reveals: Many of these parks are �paper parks� only. They harbour more squatters, farmers, pastoralists and poachers than wild animals. They are run by game scouts who earn the equivalent of 30 US$ a month and who are busy to make a living by turning the game which they hold in trust into bush meat and cash. They are parks that contribute to conservation statistics only.

Wildlife can survive in Africa without hunting � but only if somebody pays the bill. Cash is needed to conserve it � revenue is needed to tolerate it. It will survive only, if its value is higher than the opportunity costs that the owner of the land has to bear for his decision to have it on his land. Otherwise wildlife will disappear, as it has at many places already. It does not matter whether the landowner is an impoverished rural community or a well-to-do commercial large-scale farmer. The question is therefore: Will it be possible to pro-vide the cash or to earn the money to satisfy the landowner without hunting?

After having worked with African wildlife for a great part of my live, my empirical answer is NO.

Photographic tourism is a great money-spinner at many places. At others it is not. Many areas with wildlife are just not suitable for tourism for a multitude of reasons. Hunting is the way to earn money there. Often the so-called �consumptive� and �non-consumptive� tourism can go hand in hand. They complement each other. I do not say that hunting is the pana-cea for wildlife conservation in Africa. But in most places it does not work without.

Many people might not like this fact. We live, however, in a world that is governed by economics and money. There is nothing like a free lunch. Animal enthusiasts do not help the elephants and other wild animals by thinking nicely about them or watching National Geographic videos � but they would help them by allowing wildlife to earn the money that will sustain the species.

Africa�s protected areas have one thing in common � nearly all are greatly under-financed. Tourism income in most cases contributes to cost coverage of less than 30 %, and due to other priorities the necessary Government subsidies are not forthcoming; and how should they in poor countries? Whereas the minimum amount needed to run such a Park properly may be 300 US$ per sq. km. - depending on many factors -, the actual amount available may be 30 US$ or less. There are a good number of National Parks where the ques-tion is not how much tourism do they need, but how much tourism can they afford? Tourism costs them more than what it generates.

I have mentioned Katavi and Saadani National Parks in Tanzania. Katavi in the extreme west of the country has not much more than 100 visitors a year. Nevertheless a good part of an adjacent well earning hunting area was cut off and added to the National Park. Fortunately in Tanzania TANAPA is earning well in four profit-generating parks, the wealthiest of which is the Kilimanjaro Mountain. From this income they can subsidise 9 loss-making parks. But this is a rare case in Africa and this may quickly change, if tourism suffers further from international instability. In Saadani, my own baby, I advised strongly against a National Park. I would have preferred a multiple-use area, managed by a private en-trepreneur - something like a private Game Reserve in South Africa. Even if he had not paid the Government a single cent for the lease of the land, public budgets would have benefited. The conventional National Park system has its merits, but has also reached its limits in Africa. We have to find new solutions � multiple use, new sources of self-finance, community involvement based on less government dominance, and more private sector involvement. In a good number of countries it is, however, still a sacrilege to think along these lines.

A few weeks ago I was in Benin, and I met with Djaffarou Tiomoko, the Director of Pendjari National Park and three neighbouring hunting reserves. He told me that tourism just about covers its costs. Pendjari is one of the best Parks in West Africa, but nevertheless cannot compete with Parks like Kruger. It is just not attractive enough, and it is too expensive to get there. Last year he earned five times as much with 72 hunters on 177 sq km. than with 3.800 tourists on 275 sq km.

Another example is the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, where I have worked for 6 years. In 1987 this protected area received not more than 3 US-$ per sq km. from the Government budget. Due to careful development and improved management income from photographic tourism has in-creased 15 fold over the last 15 years and hunting revenue has trebled. Nevertheless hunting accounts for 90% of all income. Of course it is also important what is being done with the revenue, whether it is used for offices, cars and per diems in the capital or reinvested into conservation. In the case of the Selous a �retention scheme� was introduced by which the reserve keeps around 50% of its income. 1987 there were 5.000 elephants poached annually, and the carcass ratio was close to 20%. Presently less than 50 elephants die per annum due to poaching. The elephant population has more than doubled again. Without the hunting revenue the situation would help them by allowing wildlife to earn the money that will sustain the species.

Africa�s protected areas have one thing in common � nearly all are greatly under-financed. Tourism income in most cases contributes to cost coverage of less than 30 %, and due to other priorities the necessary Government subsidies are not forthcoming; and how should they in poor countries? Whereas the minimum amount needed to run such a Park properly may be 300 US$ per sq. km. - depending on many factors -, the actual amount available may be 30 US$ or less. There are a good number of National Parks where the question is not how much tourism do they need, but how much tourism can they afford? Tourism costs them more than what it generates.

I have mentioned Katavi and Saadani National Parks in Tanzania. Katavi in the extreme west of the country has not much more than 100 visitors a year. Nevertheless a good part of an adjacent well earning hunting area was cut off and added to the National Park. Fortunately in Tanzania TANAPA is earning well in four profit-generating parks, the wealthiest of which is the Kilimanjaro Mountain. From this income they can subsidise 9 loss-making parks. But this is a rare case in Africa and this may quickly change, if tourism suffers further from international instability. In Saadani, my own baby, I advised strongly against a National Park. I would have preferred a multiple-use area, managed by a private entrepreneur - something like a private Game Reserve in South Africa. Even if he had not paid the Government a single cent for the lease of the land, public budgets would have benefited. The conventional National Park system has its merits, but has also reached its limits in Africa. We have to find new solu-tions � multiple use, new sources of self-finance, community involvement based on less government dominance, and more private sector involvement. In a good number of countries it is, however, still a sacrilege to think along these lines.

A few weeks ago I was in Benin, and I met with Djaffarou Tiomoko, the Director of Pendjari National Park and three neighbouring hunting reserves. He told me that tourism just about covers its costs. Pendjari is one of the best Parks in West Africa, but nevertheless cannot compete with Parks like Krueger. It is just not attractive enough, and it is too expen-sive to get there. Last year he earned five times as much with 72 hunters on 177 sq km. than with 3.800 tourists on 275 sq km.

Another example is the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, where I have worked for 6 years. In 1987 this protected area received not more than 3 US-$ per sq km. from the Government budget. Due to careful development and improved management income from photographic tourism has in-creased 15 fold over the last 15 years and hunting revenue has trebled. Nevertheless hunting accounts for 90% of all income. Of course it is also important what is being done with the revenue, whether it is used for offices, cars and per diems in the capital or reinvested into conservation. In the case of the Selous a �retention scheme� was introduced by which the reserve keeps around 50% of its income. 1987 there were 5.000 elephants poached annually, and the carcass ratio was close to 20%. Presently less than 50 elephants die per annum due to poaching. The elephant population has more than doubled again. Without the hunting revenue the situation wildlife scene I have the impression that this discussion has also started here. I should like to mention the new bi-monthly newsletter of the African Chapter �African Indaba� as a good example.

Unlike other parts of Africa it is not the sustainability of wildlife use that has to be questioned in this country. The more pressing issues seem to be of biodiversity and ethics. It will be a painful process to find answers, as economic interests are at stake � but the discussion cannot be further post-poned.

If the wildlife producers, the game ranchers, the professional hunters, the operators and the pro-use scientists do not find the solutions themselves, others might find solutions for them.

Regards
Deafdog

Hunting connects us with nature. And here is what happens when xbox takes over.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/02/05/nature.interest.ap/index.html