quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

As i have said i am highly dubious about how much of this money makes it into conservation. I am highly dubious about how much of the money i have donated over the years has made it into conservation too.

Speaking of charitable donations, well, the data on US charitable organizations is public, required by regulation. It would be an easy task to look at the % of funds which went to the cause of the organization, whether pro or anti hunting.

Speaking of hunting, a huge proportion goes to maintaining the habitat, which is the prerequisite to maintain wildlife.

The funds paid by hunters pay the salaries of PH's, trackers, game scouts, the anti poaching partols and the organization which leases the concession from the tribe or government, as the case may be. The concession fees pay the salaries, in whole or in part, of the tribal authorities or the government game department.

Take away the incentive to maintain the habitat, ie. the salaries, and you take away the habitat. Take away the habitat and you take away the wildlife.

On the question of whether hunters would contribute to the maintenance of habitat, and so wildlife, if hunting were banned, the answer is irrelevant. They are paying for conservation of habitat and wildlife now where hunting is allowed, and where it is not habitat and wildlife suffers, so why advocate a ban on hunting? My personal answer to the question "Would I contribute to the conservation of habitat and so wildlife if hunting were banned in a locale where I currently hunt?": NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT I CONTRIBUTE NOW!!!

JPK


JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
All hunting isn't pretty. Never was, never will be. However, it beats the hell out of dying a natural death or a death accelerated my a snare.

I know for an absolute fact that hunting is saving a lot of game in the area in question in the video. I hunted there last year. There are massive efforts to stop poaching. The number of poached elephant carcasses has dropped dramatically since these efforts started.

One of my party when we hunted in that area last year had to put a juvenile elephant down because of the injuries caused by a poacher. It was neither fun nor exciting. It was a difficult thing to do. The elephants was going to die a horrible death otherwise. Perhaps he will see fit to post the video of the horrible injuries the poacher caused. It disturbed every single one of us. This type of thing will be rampant should hunting stop.

Again taking what you say at face value you know these things but the average member of the public does not. The average member of the public only sees or hears about the video in this thread not the other side of the coin.
If you want the public to see what you see you have to make them see it :-)

Absolute unbelievable!!??

There you go Jellybrain!

Do you think ANY killing is pretty?

Are you going to suggest that humans stop killing other creatures to feed themselves?

What is going to be next?

All carnivores should stop eating meat too?

Bloody hell!

The mind boggles at your utter idiocy!

quote:

Before i answer it was that a personal question to me or did you want an antis stance on why ban hunting?

Free 500grains

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Before i answer it was that a personal question to me or did you want an antis stance on why ban hunting?

A rhetorical question for those who claim to advocate for the conservation of wildlife.

Really, the evidence is overwhelming that regulated hunting provides the funds to preserve habitat and to protect wildlife, while banning hunting leads to a massive loss of both habitat and wildlife.

BTW, are you familiar with the US's Pitman Robertson tax/fund/projects. If not you ought to Google the topic. You will find it interesting, it is another rather direct example hunter to habitat and wildlife funding.

It isn't too difficult to follow the $'s for a hunt in a private or government owned hunting or concession. For a look at Zimbabwe use $2,000/day for an elephant hunt and a success fee of $25,000 for a 14 or 21 day bull elephant hunt and then add the success fees for other game that might be killed. Most operators publish schedules and most of those schedules parallel the government liscense and quota fees. Then back out the salaries and costs...

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
At present I have no issues with hunting anywhere other than Africa and even then it is only species that I feel cannot stand the off take they are experiencing now. When i say off take I do not just mean through hunting alone. I mean poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
At present I have no issues with hunting anywhere other than Africa and even then it is only species that I feel cannot stand the off take they are experiencing now. When i say off take I do not just mean through hunting alone. I mean poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

JB:

The legal off take as MJines has aptly described is a controlled and calculated quota which is not detrimental to the same species on that quota.

The REAL damage is being done by the ILLEGAL hunting poaching and the markets that create it.

It is towards THAT sector that the bleeding hearts should concentrate their efforts by putting hand in pocket and shelling out some serious money (instead of words) towards efforts which will hopefully eradicate poachers and their syndicates.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by jwm:
{quote}Please show me where i have said i am anti hunting. It is you who is not listening and you prove that by calling me an anti hunter.{/quote}

Okay, how about...

[QUOTE]However i would be an idiot to go from being against all hunting to supporting all hunting without being sure of my facts.

Ok i see. So you're judging me on what i was, not what i am now.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
At present I have no issues with hunting anywhere other than Africa and even then it is only species that I feel cannot stand the off take they are experiencing now. When i say off take I do not just mean through hunting alone. I mean poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease etc etc.

Hunting quotas are controlled, the off takes as you say for poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease, etc. are not.
I'll come back to this

Without hunting, not just the dollars spent by hunters but the existence of permanent camps in game areas that result in regular game patrols, the physical presence of hunters moving through game areas which discourages poaching in and of itself and the like, how would you propose to control the forms of off take that are not regulated by quotas?
I'll come back to this

The National Parks and other enforcement groups have proven themselves to be totally unfit and unequipped for the task. If money were pumped directly into governmental bureaucracies in most if not all of these African countries to address these issues we can be sure of one thing, that a large portion of those dollars would be diverted through graft and corruption. That is not meant as an indictment, it is simply reality.
Completely agree

So, I am curious, from your perspective, if hunting (again, not just dollars but the presence of camps, outfitters, staff and hunters in the field) is not part of the solution for dealing with protecting species that you feel cannot stand the off take, what is the solution in your mind?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

JB:

The legal off take as MJines has aptly described is a controlled and calculated quota which is not detrimental to the same species on that quota.

The REAL damage is being done by the ILLEGAL hunting poaching and the markets that create it.

It is towards THAT sector that the bleeding hearts should concentrate their efforts by putting hand in pocket and shelling out some serious money (instead of words) towards efforts which will hopefully eradicate poachers and their syndicates.

There. Fixed it for you mate.

quote:

Originally posted by jwm:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by jwm:
{quote}Please show me where i have said i am anti hunting. It is you who is not listening and you prove that by calling me an anti hunter.{/quote}

Okay, how about...

[QUOTE]However i would be an idiot to go from being against all hunting to supporting all hunting without being sure of my facts.

Ok i see. So you're judging me on what i was, not what i am now.

"Wait! Stop! I never said that! Show me where I said that...you can't because I never said that!!

"What? Oh, yeah, you're right...I DID say it...but...but...but that was yesterday. I never said it today. Show me where I said it today!

"Ah, never mind...I'll just twist it around differently tomorrow anyway."

quote:

Does that mean you still pee and pooh your pants. After all you did when you were a child and you can't possibly have changed can you?

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
At present I have no issues with hunting anywhere other than Africa and even then it is only species that I feel cannot stand the off take they are experiencing now. When i say off take I do not just mean through hunting alone. I mean poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease etc etc.

Hunting quotas are controlled, the off takes as you say for poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease, etc. are not.
I'll come back to this

Without hunting, not just the dollars spent by hunters but the existence of permanent camps in game areas that result in regular game patrols, the physical presence of hunters moving through game areas which discourages poaching in and of itself and the like, how would you propose to control the forms of off take that are not regulated by quotas?
I'll come back to this

The National Parks and other enforcement groups have proven themselves to be totally unfit and unequipped for the task. If money were pumped directly into governmental bureaucracies in most if not all of these African countries to address these issues we can be sure of one thing, that a large portion of those dollars would be diverted through graft and corruption. That is not meant as an indictment, it is simply reality.
Completely agree

So, I am curious, from your perspective, if hunting (again, not just dollars but the presence of camps, outfitters, staff and hunters in the field) is not part of the solution for dealing with protecting species that you feel cannot stand the off take, what is the solution in your mind?

In my opinion hunting IS a part of the solution for protecting species. However I'm not convinced that allowing hunting of (for example) lion is the best way forward at present. I completely accept that quotas are given and in the main adhered by. My problem with these quotas though is that they cannot possibly allow for the off take of lion through other causes such as poaching, snaring etc etc.
If you (generic) are given a quota of five lions for a year (for example) that might be just fine based on how many lion are out there but if poaching etc levels are higher than expected / allowed for (if things like this are allowed for when quotas are decided) then we have a problem. The off take all round for that year has been way to high! Whether legal or illegal off take is off take.
Now having said that I also understand that without lion hunts many hunting concessions will suffer horrendously and may close leading to no protection what so ever for the wildlife in that area.
In my opinion in an ideal world the governments would step up to the plate and take care of the wildlife, a temporary ban would be put on lion hunting and when numbers have stabilised then hunting would again be allowed with careful quota.
However unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and my 'ideal' is never going to happen.
To be quite frank with you I don't think there is a solution. I believe the lion will be extinct within a few decades if not sooner.
What I have to decide is whether I believe continuation of the hunting of lion is in the species best interest or not. Being frank though it does not matter what you or I think because the decision is not ours to make.

quote:

I've replied to the edited version because I don't believe poaching is illegal hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Before i answer it was that a personal question to me or did you want an antis stance on why ban hunting?

A rhetorical question for those who claim to advocate for the conservation of wildlife.

Really, the evidence is overwhelming that regulated hunting provides the funds to preserve habitat and to protect wildlife, while banning hunting leads to a massive loss of both habitat and wildlife.

BTW, are you familiar with the US's Pitman Robertson tax/fund/projects. If not you ought to Google the topic. You will find it interesting, it is another rather direct example hunter to habitat and wildlife funding.

It isn't too difficult to follow the $'s for a hunt in a private or government owned hunting or concession. For a look at Zimbabwe use $2,000/day for an elephant hunt and a success fee of $25,000 for a 14 or 21 day bull elephant hunt and then add the success fees for other game that might be killed. Most operators publish schedules and most of those schedules parallel the government liscense and quota fees. Then back out the salaries and costs...

JPK

I wasn't aware of it no but I am now and have just read a piece on it. Sounds all good to me especially now they have put legislation in place to stop the mismanagement of money in 2000.
My only problem with this article is that it's the USA which is a different entity to Africa. At present I have no issues with hunting anywhere other than Africa and even then it is only species that I feel cannot stand the off take they are experiencing now. When i say off take I do not just mean through hunting alone. I mean poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease etc etc.

Free 500grains

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
At present I have no issues with hunting anywhere other than Africa and even then it is only species that I feel cannot stand the off take they are experiencing now. When i say off take I do not just mean through hunting alone. I mean poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease etc etc.

Hunting quotas are controlled, the off takes as you say for poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease, etc. are not.
I'll come back to this

Without hunting, not just the dollars spent by hunters but the existence of permanent camps in game areas that result in regular game patrols, the physical presence of hunters moving through game areas which discourages poaching in and of itself and the like, how would you propose to control the forms of off take that are not regulated by quotas?
I'll come back to this

The National Parks and other enforcement groups have proven themselves to be totally unfit and unequipped for the task. If money were pumped directly into governmental bureaucracies in most if not all of these African countries to address these issues we can be sure of one thing, that a large portion of those dollars would be diverted through graft and corruption. That is not meant as an indictment, it is simply reality.
Completely agree

So, I am curious, from your perspective, if hunting (again, not just dollars but the presence of camps, outfitters, staff and hunters in the field) is not part of the solution for dealing with protecting species that you feel cannot stand the off take, what is the solution in your mind?

In my opinion hunting IS a part of the solution for protecting species. However I'm not convinced that allowing hunting of (for example) lion is the best way forward at present. I completely accept that quotas are given and in the main adhered by. My problem with these quotas though is that they cannot possibly allow for the off take of lion through other causes such as poaching, snaring etc etc. Now having said that I also understand that without lion hunts many hunting concessions will suffer horrendously and may close leading to no protection what so ever for the wildlife in that area.
In my opinion in an ideal world the governments would step up to the plate and take care of the wildlife, a temporary ban would be put on lion hunting and when numbers have stabilised then hunting would again be allowed with careful quota.
However unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and my 'ideal' is never going to happen.
To be quite frank with you I don't think there is a solution. I believe the lion will be extinct within a few decades if not sooner.
What I have to decide is whether I believe continuation of the hunting of lion is in the species best interest or not. Being frank though it does not matter what you or I think because the decision is not ours to make.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Before i answer it was that a personal question to me or did you want an antis stance on why ban hunting?

A rhetorical question for those who claim to advocate for the conservation of wildlife.

Really, the evidence is overwhelming that regulated hunting provides the funds to preserve habitat and to protect wildlife, while banning hunting leads to a massive loss of both habitat and wildlife.

BTW, are you familiar with the US's Pitman Robertson tax/fund/projects. If not you ought to Google the topic. You will find it interesting, it is another rather direct example hunter to habitat and wildlife funding.

It isn't too difficult to follow the $'s for a hunt in a private or government owned hunting or concession. For a look at Zimbabwe use $2,000/day for an elephant hunt and a success fee of $25,000 for a 14 or 21 day bull elephant hunt and then add the success fees for other game that might be killed. Most operators publish schedules and most of those schedules parallel the government liscense and quota fees. Then back out the salaries and costs...

JPK

I wasn't aware of it no but I am now and have just read a piece on it. Sounds all good to me especially now they have put legislation in place to stop the mismanagement of money in 2000.
My only problem with this article is that it's the USA which is a different entity to Africa. At present I have no issues with hunting anywhere other than Africa and even then it is only species that I feel cannot stand the off take they are experiencing now. When i say off take I do not just mean through hunting alone. I mean poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease etc etc.

Following up on MJines' post and others:

Recall the private anti poaching efforts under taken by the firm hunting in Zambia? It is the same just about everywhere, the safari company which has a long term lease has an interest in maintaining both the habitat and the wildlife and many, probably almost all, use some of the revenue stream to fund anti poaching efforts.

The same occurs throughout all countries which permit hunting, whether on private property or on government concession which span years and so give the safari operators a long term interest in protecting habitat and wildlife into the future.

Some African game departments aren't too bad either. Until recently Zimbabwe's was very good, and even now it isn't totally corrupt of incapable of conducting anti poaching activities or of determining appropriate off take, factoring in poaching and current game counts.

If you look at some of the operators in Tanzania, they actively manage the lion population, including selling some quota to hunters but often declining to sell all quota to hunters - that they have to pay for regardless - when they believe the population in their long term concessions would be harmed.

Are you familiar with the economic theory (I'd say "reality") of "The Tragedy of the Common?" If not you ought to Google it - but be careful, the description will vary according to the political persuasion of the writer. It succinctly summarizes what happens to habitat and wildlife absent management. Depending on the author of the summary, it directly or indirectly makes the point that without long term private economic interests, or at least long term governmental economic interests, short term greed will prevail. We see that in Africa with all poaching, but especially elephant and rhino poaching, and the lion poaching by some.

Here is a description from Princeton, a left leaning to socialist view:
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. This dilemma was first described in an influential article titled "The Tragedy of the Commons," written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968. [The remainder falls off the political scale]

From Invesopedia - I have no idea of political persuasion, but suspect a little left of the middle of the (American) road:

Definition of 'Tragedy Of The Commons'
An economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals.

Investopedia explains 'Tragedy Of The Commons'
The tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals neglect the well-being of society (or the group) in the pursuit of personal gain. For example, if neighboring farmers increase the number of their own sheep living on a common block of land, eventually the land will become depleted and not be able to support the sheep, which is detrimental to all.

Now recall that most hunters, except for a relatively few fools, % wise, hold the long term interest of habitat and wildlife dear so that their sons and daughters can follow in their footsteps.

Recall the actions of the long term concession holders in many African countries - assistance to locals through jobs to reduce the inclination to poach and to inform of the financial benefits of maintaining wildlife populations, anti poaching patrols, snare collection, etc, etc, etc.

Remove the financial wherewithal provided by hunting and you loose the obvious benefits to most of the long term maintenance of habitat and wildlife, and so you loose everything, as can be seen ever so clearly in the Kenya example.

And then worse, factor in the indigenous African's almost universal indifference to the future, to planning, to saving anything for anything....

On "temporary" moratoriums:
Because of the volume of the noise made by rabid and short sighted anti hunters, temporary translates to permanent. It is easier for a government official to do nothing than to do the right thing and to restore hunting. We have seen this in Kenya and we will see this in Botswana. Moreover, the funding to preserve habitat and to maintain wildlife through anti poaching and other efforts is needed continuously, to cut off the funds for even a short period may well prove disastrous, and the funds come from hunters.

On the Pittman Robertson 2000 reform. It was required because the left leaning, so called "environmentalist" in the state departments of the environment were diverting funds from the proper use, which is the maintenance of habitat, and so the maintenance of wildlife - all wildlife, not just those species hunted.

The Pittman Robertson tax/fund was originally proposed by and supported by hunters and fishermen. The reform was demanded by hunters and fishermen as well.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I've replied to the edited version because I don't believe poaching is illegal hunting.

JB:

Pray define illegal hunting because there is no such thing as illegal poaching nor is there legal poaching either.

The use of the term illegal hunting is perfectly correct - if you please!

Poaching of anything is illegal and mainly refers to hunting or fishing without a licence.

An I thought yer were a master of yer own language.

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:
A couple of things on Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy ... "

1) The late Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009 for essentially debunking Hardin's "Tragedy ... ". She explains the basics of her work HERE.

2) The thing that almost everyone forgets (or never learned because they never actually read Hardin's essay all the way through), is that Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons was actually a call for the removal of reproductive rights from women, which he considered to be a virtual "commons" in-and-of-itself. He only used over-grazing as an example and introduction to his proposal.

Free 500grains

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Another crime committed by enemies of the hunters

quote:

In my opinion hunting IS a part of the solution for protecting species. However I'm not convinced that allowing hunting of (for example) lion is the best way forward at present. I completely accept that quotas are given and in the main adhered by. My problem with these quotas though is that they cannot possibly allow for the off take of lion through other causes such as poaching, snaring etc etc.
If you (generic) are given a quota of five lions for a year (for example) that might be just fine based on how many lion are out there but if poaching etc levels are higher than expected / allowed for (if things like this are allowed for when quotas are decided) then we have a problem. The off take all round for that year has been way to high! Whether legal or illegal off take is off take.
Now having said that I also understand that without lion hunts many hunting concessions will suffer horrendously and may close leading to no protection what so ever for the wildlife in that area.
In my opinion in an ideal world the governments would step up to the plate and take care of the wildlife, a temporary ban would be put on lion hunting and when numbers have stabilised then hunting would again be allowed with careful quota.
However unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and my 'ideal' is never going to happen.
To be quite frank with you I don't think there is a solution. I believe the lion will be extinct within a few decades if not sooner.
What I have to decide is whether I believe continuation of the hunting of lion is in the species best interest or not. Being frank though it does not matter what you or I think because the decision is not ours to make.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
[QUOTE]I've replied to the edited version because I don't believe poaching is illegal hunting.

JB:

Pray define illegal hunting because there is no such thing as illegal poaching nor is there legal poaching either.

The use of the term illegal hunting is perfectly correct - if you please!

Poaching of anything is illegal and mainly refers to hunting or fishing without a licence.

An I thought yer were a master of yer own language.

quote:

Originally posted by Full Roar:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Another crime committed by enemies of the hunters

what a tragedy

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by Full Roar:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Another crime committed by enemies of the hunters

what a tragedy

Indeed, both are tragedies. I've been to the Yorkshire Wildlife Park a few times and seen Johnny and his pride.

The posting of these two articles however presented me with an ideal opportunity to do a little research. So this morning I took my laptop down into the bar and asked everyone to have a look at the rhino (video too) and lion article and the video which originally started this thread. I then asked them what they thought of them. The general consensus was that the lion although tragic was nature. The rhino and the elephant though were equally as abhorrent to them as each other.

This only goes to illustrating my original post here that posting of these videos does not do you any justice whatsoever. The general public all be it a small sample lumped you in the with the poachers of this world.

quote:

Poaching specifically refers to the taking of wild animals in an illegal manner.
So if one shot and took a wild lion without proper authority and permission, it would be poaching.
-
IF one trespassed onto private land to shoot and take a commercially bred animal,be it lion or a farmers deer or cow,
It would be regarded as theft.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by Full Roar:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Another crime committed by enemies of the hunters

what a tragedy

Indeed, both are tragedies. I've been to the Yorkshire Wildlife Park a few times and seen Johnny and his pride.

The posting of these two articles however presented me with an ideal opportunity to do a little research. So this morning I took my laptop down into the bar and asked everyone to have a look at the rhino (video too) and lion article and the video which originally started this thread. I then asked them what they thought of them. The general consensus was that the lion although tragic was nature. The rhino and the elephant though were equally as abhorrent to them as each other.

This only goes to illustrating my original post here that posting of these videos does not do you any justice whatsoever. The general public all be it a small sample lumped you in the with the poachers of this world.

You are asking a bunch of ignorant city dwellers to judge wildlife??

Amazing!

How about those same people get off their backsides and go to live in the bush for a few months to see what real life is like in the bush?

quote:

You are asking a bunch of ignorant city dwellers to judge wildlife??

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
At present I have no issues with hunting anywhere other than Africa and even then it is only species that I feel cannot stand the off take they are experiencing now. When i say off take I do not just mean through hunting alone. I mean poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease etc etc.

Hunting quotas are controlled, the off takes as you say for poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease, etc. are not.
I'll come back to this

Without hunting, not just the dollars spent by hunters but the existence of permanent camps in game areas that result in regular game patrols, the physical presence of hunters moving through game areas which discourages poaching in and of itself and the like, how would you propose to control the forms of off take that are not regulated by quotas?
I'll come back to this

The National Parks and other enforcement groups have proven themselves to be totally unfit and unequipped for the task. If money were pumped directly into governmental bureaucracies in most if not all of these African countries to address these issues we can be sure of one thing, that a large portion of those dollars would be diverted through graft and corruption. That is not meant as an indictment, it is simply reality.
Completely agree

So, I am curious, from your perspective, if hunting (again, not just dollars but the presence of camps, outfitters, staff and hunters in the field) is not part of the solution for dealing with protecting species that you feel cannot stand the off take, what is the solution in your mind?

In my opinion hunting IS a part of the solution for protecting species. However I'm not convinced that allowing hunting of (for example) lion is the best way forward at present. I completely accept that quotas are given and in the main adhered by. My problem with these quotas though is that they cannot possibly allow for the off take of lion through other causes such as poaching, snaring etc etc. Now having said that I also understand that without lion hunts many hunting concessions will suffer horrendously and may close leading to no protection what so ever for the wildlife in that area.
In my opinion in an ideal world the governments would step up to the plate and take care of the wildlife, a temporary ban would be put on lion hunting and when numbers have stabilised then hunting would again be allowed with careful quota.
However unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and my 'ideal' is never going to happen.
To be quite frank with you I don't think there is a solution. I believe the lion will be extinct within a few decades if not sooner.
What I have to decide is whether I believe continuation of the hunting of lion is in the species best interest or not. Being frank though it does not matter what you or I think because the decision is not ours to make.

The above bolded portion is WHY it was so IMPORTANT for SCI and industry in general to support aged based lion harvest and embrace the "The Definition of a Huntable Male Lion" as the ideal.

Why??? Because the taking of these lion is inconsequntial to the local population.

It allows lion hunting to continue in the light of those things and continue to support the species monetarily.

quote:

Originally posted by Pieter Kriel:

quote:

In my opinion hunting IS a part of the solution for protecting species. However I'm not convinced that allowing hunting of (for example) lion is the best way forward at present. I completely accept that quotas are given and in the main adhered by. My problem with these quotas though is that they cannot possibly allow for the off take of lion through other causes such as poaching, snaring etc etc.
If you (generic) are given a quota of five lions for a year (for example) that might be just fine based on how many lion are out there but if poaching etc levels are higher than expected / allowed for (if things like this are allowed for when quotas are decided) then we have a problem. The off take all round for that year has been way to high! Whether legal or illegal off take is off take.
Now having said that I also understand that without lion hunts many hunting concessions will suffer horrendously and may close leading to no protection what so ever for the wildlife in that area.
In my opinion in an ideal world the governments would step up to the plate and take care of the wildlife, a temporary ban would be put on lion hunting and when numbers have stabilised then hunting would again be allowed with careful quota.
However unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and my 'ideal' is never going to happen.
To be quite frank with you I don't think there is a solution. I believe the lion will be extinct within a few decades if not sooner.
What I have to decide is whether I believe continuation of the hunting of lion is in the species best interest or not. Being frank though it does not matter what you or I think because the decision is not ours to make.

Sir
I'm not the funniest clown in the circus I know of but logic and experience in the hunting idustry has over time taught me a few things. One is that subsistence poaching and poaching for financial gain will not ease off if you ban lion hunting or any and all hunting for that matter. Banning poaching is like banning crime: it's already been done, it's already illegal and yet people still commit crime.

By temporarily banning lion hunting in certain areas the only two things that will happen are:
1. you are going to save the 5 (random number) lions that were put on quota to be legally hunted and from which taxes are generated, and
2. the poachers will have 5 more lions to poach because the outfitter hunting that area has no more financial incentive to be there.

As a general rule African countries have very limited resources and in many cases lack the will to apply said resources when it comes to less important issues like wildlife preservation.

quote:

In my opinion in an ideal world the governments would step up to the plate and take care of the wildlife, a temporary ban would be put on lion hunting and when numbers have stabilised then hunting would again be allowed with careful quota.
However unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and my 'ideal' is never going to happen

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
At present I have no issues with hunting anywhere other than Africa and even then it is only species that I feel cannot stand the off take they are experiencing now. When i say off take I do not just mean through hunting alone. I mean poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease etc etc.

Hunting quotas are controlled, the off takes as you say for poaching, snaring, poisoning, disease, etc. are not.
I'll come back to this

Without hunting, not just the dollars spent by hunters but the existence of permanent camps in game areas that result in regular game patrols, the physical presence of hunters moving through game areas which discourages poaching in and of itself and the like, how would you propose to control the forms of off take that are not regulated by quotas?
I'll come back to this

The National Parks and other enforcement groups have proven themselves to be totally unfit and unequipped for the task. If money were pumped directly into governmental bureaucracies in most if not all of these African countries to address these issues we can be sure of one thing, that a large portion of those dollars would be diverted through graft and corruption. That is not meant as an indictment, it is simply reality.
Completely agree

So, I am curious, from your perspective, if hunting (again, not just dollars but the presence of camps, outfitters, staff and hunters in the field) is not part of the solution for dealing with protecting species that you feel cannot stand the off take, what is the solution in your mind?

In my opinion hunting IS a part of the solution for protecting species. However I'm not convinced that allowing hunting of (for example) lion is the best way forward at present. I completely accept that quotas are given and in the main adhered by. My problem with these quotas though is that they cannot possibly allow for the off take of lion through other causes such as poaching, snaring etc etc.
If you (generic) are given a quota of five lions for a year (for example) that might be just fine based on how many lion are out there but if poaching etc levels are higher than expected / allowed for (if things like this are allowed for when quotas are decided) then we have a problem. The off take all round for that year has been way to high! Whether legal or illegal off take is off take.
Now having said that I also understand that without lion hunts many hunting concessions will suffer horrendously and may close leading to no protection what so ever for the wildlife in that area.
In my opinion in an ideal world the governments would step up to the plate and take care of the wildlife, a temporary ban would be put on lion hunting and when numbers have stabilised then hunting would again be allowed with careful quota.
However unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and my 'ideal' is never going to happen.
To be quite frank with you I don't think there is a solution. I believe the lion will be extinct within a few decades if not sooner.
What I have to decide is whether I believe continuation of the hunting of lion is in the species best interest or not. Being frank though it does not matter what you or I think because the decision is not ours to make.

It seems that we agree on more than we disagree on. If we agree that controlled off take via quotas is preferable to uncontrolled off take via poaching, snaring, etc., and if we agree that the game departments in Africa are not the solution since they are ill equipped and prone to corrupt influences, and if we agree that hunting and the dollars from hunting and presence of hunters is the thin red line between the preservation of concessions and game areas and the depletion of those areas, then there is little to nothing left to debate. Not only is hunting in the best interest of the lion, given present alternatives, it is the only thing that will arguably prevent the lion from ending up being gone forever except in zoos. You say that there is no solution, but I think you know what the solution is you just have a hard time philosophically accepting the solution.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Frostbit,

I have taken everything you said on board and am doing some further reading.
On the temporary ban of lion hunting i did say in an ideal world and i know that it is far from ideal and that you probably would not get lion back on quota if this happened.