quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
In today’s world, wild lion hunting with fewer and fewer on quota and age restrictions, it’s simply a game of money
Honestly I would love to do it but it simply exceeded my financial willingness besides my elephant hunting addiction, which gets in the way anytime I somehow think of lion

Me and others have introduced a two tier pricing. If you do not shoot the Lion of your dreams then you basically pay PG rates. Also we have noted that prices for Lion are dropping.

Thanks Andrew for putting bug in my head again :-)

quote:

Originally posted by postoak:
Aaron, are you saying all wild lion quotas are filled every year? If not, I think if CBL lions were done away with at least some extra wild lions would be taken.

Any idea how many wild lions are taken legally each year in Africa. I think I read it is only 10 for RSA. I think there are 500 CBL lions taken so if only a small percentage of the CBL hunters decided to go for a wild lion I think it would have a huge impact.

Of course, that brings up the question of whether trophy hunting wild lions reduces or increases the lion population.

That last sentence wouldn't make sense to a non-hunter but I am sure everyone here does understand.

No...true wild lion quotas, especially in places like TZ where areas can have multiple lion on quota are definitely not 100% filled each year. Regardless of your scenario, it would NOT have any "negative" impact on wild lions. Add all the wild lion hunters you want....the quotas still remain the same and if PH's are only shooting lions that meet all the criteria - taking them out has little to no impact on a healthy / wild lion population - regardless of whether the quota is utilized entirely or not. Even Dr. Craig Packer agrees with that one.....

Despite what happens with CBL I don't see that happening. Wild lion hunts are hugely restricted by price / availability now, and that's not going to change.

I'd guess maybe 100+ wild lions are shot per year on average now. Where as 10 years ago TZ alone was shooting 300 per year on average.

One can argue that hunting the wild lion reduces the population if they like (meaning the antis) but the way lion hunting is conducted / regulated now....I know that's not the truth. I can however guarantee you this. If we stop hunting the wild lion completely, and the massive amount of money it generates for operators in these wild places is gone....the operators will be too. Along with their absence, will be the absence of wildlife protection and all the deterrent for continued human encroachment / habitat loss!!!

Thanks Aaron -- informative and reasonable as always.

Some figures I got out of this are that about 500 CB lions are taken per year and about 100 wild lions are taken per year.

CB lions cost $10,000 or less and wild lions cost $45,000 and up.

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
Thanks Andrew for putting bug in my head again :-)

Alternatively shoot a doe over a corn bucket and save yourself a few bucks. Every pun intended.

quote:

Originally posted by postoak:
Thanks Aaron -- informative and reasonable as always.

Some figures I got out of this are that about 500 CB lions are taken per year and about 100 wild lions are taken per year.

CB lions cost $10,000 or less and wild lions cost $45,000 and up.

Sir, no question is a "bad" question, its just a question - I sincerely appreciate that.

CBL are generally from $10,000 - $30,000 depending on the lion, etc. Wild lions are now generally $75,000 plus. I too struggle to pay for / hunt a wild lions now, but I don't ignore the fact that it is what it is. I value those who can, for what they do and who they are. They are all contributing to the future of the lion!

I wish this was not the case, but reality is what it is. Regardless, unless we protect / hunt the wild lion, his days are numbered. I for one commend all that do, and say thank you for doing so!!!!

I stopped reading about a third of the way down page three, so if this has been addressed, oh well.

I think my whole problem and what crazyhorse was trying to say is shown in this example:

About a month or so ago there was a thread that devolved a bit like this one in the “who gets to decide what is ethical” department. Dogcat posted and basically called every deer hunter in Texas unethical because IN HIS OPINION - which he clearly thinks everyone should follow - is that hunting deer from a stand with a feeder is horribly unethical and a detriment to hunting.

So you know a bit about me, I have hunted in Texas, New Mexico, Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania and would be in The wilds of Africa every year if I could. I have hunted deer, pronghorn, cape buffalo, leopard, crocodile, and numerous plainsgame.

I enjoy deer hunting here. I enjoy hunting Africa more for lots of reasons, but it is apples and oranges. To me those hunts in Europe or anywhere else where they drive the game don’t SEEM ethical. I’ve never done one and might feel differently. But get this - I don’t feel the need to judge them because I understand that it is my opinion and it is not my place do so. It just means it is probably not a hunt for me.

When I discuss hunting with someone and something like this comes up, I may say I don’t FEEL like a particular method is the way it should be done, because that is the truth - it is a feeling not some edict I get to pass. If someone talks at me in absolutes like they are the arbiter of ethical hunting and have a holier than thou attitude I just smile and move on. The same goes for someone telling me about whatever I consider a canned hunt or any other hunt I don’t “believe” in. Just smile and move on.

The bottom line is I consider myself a very ethical hunter. I have great respect for the animals, both before and after a kill, here or in Africa. Anyone who thinks they are in charge of my ethics is more than welcome to never share a camp with me. I also get pretty excited after an animal is down, which a lot of folks don’t like. It isn’t disrespectful but it is a little squealy and happy. The day it stops feeling that way I’ll quit hunting.

End of rant and I probably won’t look at this thread again as it is just disheartening.

I hope all of us here are able to continue hunting in our respective ways.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
Thanks Andrew for putting bug in my head again :-)

Alternatively shoot a doe over a corn bucket and save yourself a few bucks. Every pun intended.

That’s in Texas
Up here , no feeding allowed period, no high fence either

By your previous comments I meant to say I’m thinking about lion hunting again

quote:

Originally posted by gotogirl3:
I stopped reading about a third of the way down page three, so if this has been addressed, oh well.

I think my whole problem and what crazyhorse was trying to say is shown in this example:

About a month or so ago there was a thread that devolved a bit like this one in the “who gets to decide what is ethical” department. Dogcat posted and basically called every deer hunter in Texas unethical because IN HIS OPINION - which he clearly thinks everyone should follow - is that hunting deer from a stand with a feeder is horribly unethical and a detriment to hunting.

So you know a bit about me, I have hunted in Texas, New Mexico, Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania and would be in The wilds of Africa every year if I could. I have hunted deer, pronghorn, cape buffalo, leopard, crocodile, and numerous plainsgame.

I enjoy deer hunting here. I enjoy hunting Africa more for lots of reasons, but it is apples and oranges. To me those hunts in Europe or anywhere else where they drive the game don’t SEEM ethical. I’ve never done one and might feel differently. But get this - I don’t feel the need to judge them because I understand that it is my opinion and it is not my place do so. It just means it is probably not a hunt for me.

When I discuss hunting with someone and something like this comes up, I may say I don’t FEEL like a particular method is the way it should be done, because that is the truth - it is a feeling not some edict I get to pass. If someone talks at me in absolutes like they are the arbiter of ethical hunting and have a holier than thou attitude I just smile and move on. The same goes for someone telling me about whatever I consider a canned hunt or any other hunt I don’t “believe” in. Just smile and move on.

The bottom line is I consider myself a very ethical hunter. I have great respect for the animals, both before and after a kill, here or in Africa. Anyone who thinks they are in charge of my ethics is more than welcome to never share a camp with me. I also get pretty excited after an animal is down, which a lot of folks don’t like. It isn’t disrespectful but it is a little squealy and happy. The day it stops feeling that way I’ll quit hunting.

End of rant and I probably won’t look at this thread again as it is just disheartening.

I hope all of us here are able to continue hunting in our respective ways.

I can't speak for Dogcat, nor did I see his post you refer to. I can only speak from the one "experience" I had with a similar scenario in Texas about 10 yrs ago.

I was asked by a good friend to accompany his "employee" on a deer hunt to a high-fence ranch to ensure the guy shoots the "right" deer, as they already had one incident where he / his guide shot the wrong deer. So I went with the hunter, we arrived at the ranch / lodge, very nice place. That evening the owner showed us pics of the deer we were to shoot. The owner claimed the buck was 180", and the hunt was priced accordingly.

The next morning the owner dropped the two of us off at the box blind, the feeder was 70 yards away. The owner said the feeder will go off in about 45 min, and shortly there after the buck will appear. And, that's exactly what happened. I've guided lots of big whitetails....but I knew this was no 180" buck. It was without a doubt the same buck from the pics, so I told the guy to shoot it. He did, he was happy and the hunt was over that quick. The buck was 161", a fine buck none-the-less, and we went home.

Certainly one can argue the ethics of such a hunt, etc. I can't say I really cared either way....everyone involved was happy - so good for them. I certainly would not have called it a "hunt", but it was an experience I had not seen before.

quote:

Certainly one can argue the ethics of such a hunt, etc. I can't say I really cared either way....everyone involved was happy - so good for them. I certainly would not have called it a "hunt", but it was an experience I had not seen before.

And just to educate you a little, I DO NOT view them as hunts either!

Contrary to the views of some that have participated in this discussion, if it wasn't for my age/arthritis and changes in the attitudes of Land Owners here in Texas I would STILL be hunting deer by Spot and Stalk.

I killed a lot of deer that way here in north Texas and enjoyed the hell out of that type hunting. The last time I did that type hunting was during the first week of this month with two clients from New York.

I spotted a sounder of pigs out in a wheat field and the wind was in our favor and we made close to a 400 yard sneek on those pigs and both clients got a pig. This took place on a nice sunny afternoon at almost 5 o'clock and when I headed back to get the pick up, I was happier than a pig in shit, I got my clients on to those pigs and there wasn't a feeder or kernel corn anywhere to be seen.

Sometimes, for people to enjoy or even do an activity, there are extenuating circumstances that negate their being able to participater in their preferred manner.

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
Thanks Andrew for putting bug in my head again :-)

Alternatively shoot a doe over a corn bucket and save yourself a few bucks. Every pun intended.

That’s in Texas
Up here , no feeding allowed period, no high fence either

By your previous comments I meant to say I’m thinking about lion hunting again

Just pulling your string mate. Yes you must hunt Lion and there is nothing like being in close proximity of this beast.

Had few close to encounters, pretty exciting

Aaron, I understand that goes on here but that is not what the majority of Texas hunters do. Those are guided hunts. I’m talking about the average guy, or in my case gal. We have leases that we work and keep up, build stands, etc. Rarely will you shoot the good bucks at a feeder, but it does move them to the area where you might get a shot one day if you’re lucky. I would not want to creep around stalking the woods on a shared deer lease because to me it’s a safety issue. In Africa it is one of the things I love most about the hunting. Different places, different game, different methods. Please don’t give the idea that what you referred to is how the majority of hunters do it in Texas.

On my ranch, if one tried spot and stalk, a deer would never be seen. It is too thick.

We all seem to be struggling internally among ourselves about lion hunting because there are no clear answers and ethical viewpoints differ.

And the antis clearly believe any killing is wrong .

Last night while we were eating steak! I was asked to justify it. I pointed out how "hunting" has brought back wild animals in SA and namibia like rhino, black wildebeest, increased the population from half a million to over 20 million wild animals in SA , local Africans get food from it and they are the ones who get killed, but they still didn't agree.

I certainly don't have the answer!!!

But a couple of points:

Oxford dictionary for to hunt is it to pursue and kill wild animals for sport or food.

50 years ago as a kid when our neighbor farmers had cattle killed by lion and leopard, they would stake out the cow and sit and wait to "kill" it. If they tracked it back towards the Kruger Park they were hunting it. I.e. Aaron s added categories. But if that is hunting, i.e. Tracking and pursuing, can e.g. A leopard ever be hunted as fair chase? A friend virtually guarantees a leopard or lion over a bait but prefers tracking lion as a true hunt. Is that really so.. see Aaron s other categories. Leopard with dogs may not qualify as fair chase. Or does dog hunting of deer and moose qualify? If I was to shoot a fox at the hen house that was kill it, not hunting.

To antis, any killing / hunting for sport is wrong even if animals go extinct. They don't understand that eco tourism won't save animals, ignoring the the local population effect. The manager of Timbavati said a few years ago that he had to have 18,000 lodge beds sold to equal one rhino hunt!


I agree very much with Saeed s point that if there is a fence, then its always on your mind. This last year I was asked to kill a buffalo, no trophy, by one of the "PH s" in the movie Trophy, because it was chasing the ecotourists and had tried to kill African workers putting up a fence. I did not like it or consider it a hunt. It was just problem animal control.



If I may, one final point. We need to win hearts by also supporting research. I support WildCru and SA research. Many of the scientist understand the issues and with our support will also be our advocates apart from learning how to preserve animals for future generations, and that I think we can all agree on, anti and hunter.

Great thread Aaron and thanks for hosting us Saeed!

quote:

Originally posted by gotogirl3:
Aaron, I understand that goes on here but that is not what the majority of Texas hunters do. Those are guided hunts. I’m talking about the average guy, or in my case gal. We have leases that we work and keep up, build stands, etc. Rarely will you shoot the good bucks at a feeder, but it does move them to the area where you might get a shot one day if you’re lucky. I would not want to creep around stalking the woods on a shared deer lease because to me it’s a safety issue. In Africa it is one of the things I love most about the hunting. Different places, different game, different methods. Please don’t give the idea that what you referred to is how the majority of hunters do it in Texas.

I simply gave my one / only experience in a high fence over feeders as an example of what others were referring to when it comes to this method. I didn't insinuate all is like that in TX.

I've hunted numerous wild / free ranging places in TX, it was fair chase hunting just like anywhere else.

quote:

On my ranch, if one tried spot and stalk, a deer would never be seen. It is too thick.

Not if the hunter is patient and knows what they are doing. It isn't easy but it can be done.

quote:

In this case, it is the elitists being ready and willing to see other hunters lose the ability to hiunt, in hopes of saving the hunting they enjoy doing.

Randall, I agree with you 100%. I hope you are sitting down when you read that.

It really saddens,me to see hunters so divided, just like gun owners.......sure I'll sell your AR's and semi autos down the river so I can hopefully keep my custom mausers and over and under s...

.

.

J, maybe you need to set down, but odds are you and me and Geedubya probably agree on more stuff than any of us care to admit, we simply have different POV's that don't mesh all that often, it is part of being a Texan.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

On my ranch, if one tried spot and stalk, a deer would never be seen. It is too thick.

Not if the hunter is patient and knows what they are doing. It isn't easy but it can be done.

Bullshit. I have a lot of areas on my farm where I can’t get into with my tractor and a bush hog. And it’s where the bigger bucks hang out until dark. I see them on trail cams but they never leave until later. I have tried to get into the areas and clean them up a bit but simply can’t get in. I would love to see you try a little spot and stalk in there

quote:

local Africans get food from it and they are the ones who get killed

Statements such as this just don't wash down.

Africans most certainly do not need game meat to survive. They most definitely will gorge themselves when an opportunity is offered but quite frankly do not make a big deal if they don't have it.

While some may indeed get killed by the odd Crocodile or rogue Elephant/Hippo, most get killed in other circumstances, so that too is just an assumption.

There is no villager in Africa that does not include protein in his diet, whether it be fish, chicken or meat (beef or goat).

If anything, they may not afford to buy red meat as often as they would like so may find themselves "rationed" to frugal amounts per week, unlike eating habits in developed countries where we are traditionally used to having as much meat in one sitting as the villager would hope to get in a week.

Make no mistake that other than the occasional Elephant which gets shot and subsequently offered to and dismembered by villagers in the area, most other game meat which is distributed to the local village falls under the "management" of the village chief.

The truth in hunting is that the hunter's dollars keep the game where it is and sustains it existence; "if it pays, it stays" comes to mind and the anti-hunting groups have only contributed with words!

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

local Africans get food from it and they are the ones who get killed

Statements such as this just don't wash down.

Africans most certainly do not need game meat to survive. They most certainly will gorge themselves when an opportunity is offered but quite frankly do not make a big deal if they don't have it.

There is no villager in Africa that does not include protein in his diet, whether it be fish, chicken or meat (beef or goat).

If anything, they may not afford to buy red meat as often as they would like so may find themselves "rationed" to frugal amounts per week, unlike eating habits in developed countries.

Make no mistake that other than the occasional Elephant which gets shot and subsequently offered to and dismembered by villagers in the area, most other game meat which is distributed to the local village falls under the "management" of the village chief.

The truth in hunting is that the hunter's dollars keep the game where it is and sustains it existence; "if it pays, it stays" comes to mind and the anti-hunting groups have only contributed with words!

I agree. I think the whole argument in defense of African hunting that it feeds a protein starved continent is more a feel good argument than something that holds up to scrutiny. To me the more compelling argument is that hunting preserves habitat. The biggest threat to game in Africa is the loss of habitat. And the biggest threat to habitat is population growth. The population in Africa has doubled in the last fifty years and is expected to more than double again by 2050. Those people have to have somewhere to go and some way to make a living. If game habitat cannot be preserved through hunting by providing local people a more economic use of the land as opposed to farming or ranching, the land will be devoted to farming or ranching. Most of these areas will not sustain photographic safaris. Preserving habitat for the sake of some greater social good ain’t going to fly. If hunting is not the highest and best economic use of the land it will lost to game habitat.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

On my ranch, if one tried spot and stalk, a deer would never be seen. It is too thick.

Not if the hunter is patient and knows what they are doing. It isn't easy but it can be done.

Bullshit. I have a lot of areas on my farm where I can’t get into with my tractor and a bush hog. And it’s where the bigger bucks hang out until dark. I see them on trail cams but they never leave until later. I have tried to get into the areas and clean them up a bit but simply can’t get in. I would love to see you try a little spot and stalk in there

Exactly. Spot and stalk when visibility is 5 feet. Now that is an exercise in futility.

Well, think what you wish, but I am pretty sure there are both archers and gun hunters that could do it.

It might take them a few trips to get it done, but it can be done.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Well, think what you wish, but I am pretty sure there are both archers and gun hunters that could do it.

It might take them a few trips to get it done, but it can be done.

Here's the thing about spot/stalk hunting....its awfully hard to stalk something you can't see!!! Just sayin!!

quote:

its awfully hard to stalk something you can't see!!!

Yes, that is true, but from experience unless or until a person get's out there a tries it a few times and pays attention they won't know for sure.

I found out it could be done and done consistently, if a person just applies themselves and pays attention.

[/QUOTE]I agree. I think the whole argument in defense of African hunting that it feeds a protein starved continent is more a feel good argument than something that holds up to scrutiny. To me the more compelling argument is that hunting preserves habitat. The biggest threat to game in Africa is the loss of habitat. And the biggest threat to habitat is population growth. The population in Africa has doubled in the last fifty years and is expected to more than double again by 2050. Those people have to have somewhere to go and some way to make a living. If game habitat cannot be preserved through hunting by providing local people a more economic use of the land as opposed to farming or ranching, the land will be devoted to farming or ranching. Most of these areas will not sustain photographic safaris. Preserving habitat for the sake of some greater social good ain’t going to fly. If hunting is not the highest and best economic use of the land it will lost to game habitat.[/QUOTE]


Mike I agree with what you have written but I have to add that it is vital to include benefits to indigenous people. Economic considerations are very important; without incentives to preserve natural resources land will be lost. However I feel that there is a human element that should not be ignored. Showing the world that hunting provides resources that are used by local people is a powerful message.

Feeding people is something that everyone can relate to and no one can argue with. Data from the WHO convincingly shows that protein consumption in sub-Saharan Africa lags significantly behind the developed world. While it isn't economically efficient to have foreign hunters come specifically to provide food for locals, meat it is an undeniable byproduct of hunting. The common perception of people unfamiliar with hunting in Africa is that we simply cut off the heads and leave the rest to rot. We can demonstrate that is simply not true. Whether we hunt on a game ranch in South Africa or in a CAMPFIRE area in Zimbabwe, the meat is utilized and does not go to waste. Documenting the meat distribution from hunting is something that could aid us greatly. This, in my opinion, is more than a "feel good argument".

We can debate among ourselves about the ethics but we need to promote to concept of sustainable use to the non-hunting community. We have an image problem as hunters and showing that hunting can benefit animals AND people would help significantly with this problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

its awfully hard to stalk something you can't see!!!

Yes, that is true, but from experience unless or until a person get's out there a tries it a few times and pays attention they won't know for sure.

I found out it could be done and done consistently, if a person just applies themselves and pays attention.

The definition of futility is "doing the same thing over / over again, with the same result"

But heck man...what do I know?

I really just wanted to talk about lions!

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
I really just wanted to talk about lions!

YES

quote:

But heck man...what do I know?

Maybe not as much as you think you do!

Smart people never stop learning no matter how old they are!

Fulvio and MJines. I don't disagree about the importance of habitat but the idea that the meat is not important or people's safety is ignoring the realities in Mozambique and Zimbabwe rural areas. In both I saw Kwashikor (protein malnutrition) in the last 6 years. I did not expect that but that was the case. In Mozambique they could not afford to kill a chicken that laid eggs. Zim is in similar straights. Namibia is better off but a buffalo also goes a long way to feed a lot of people. I find your reaction somewhat surprising. And in both animals not infrequently kill people.

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:

quote:

I agree. I think the whole argument in defense of African hunting that it feeds a protein starved continent is more a feel good argument than something that holds up to scrutiny. To me the more compelling argument is that hunting preserves habitat. The biggest threat to game in Africa is the loss of habitat. And the biggest threat to habitat is population growth. The population in Africa has doubled in the last fifty years and is expected to more than double again by 2050. Those people have to have somewhere to go and some way to make a living. If game habitat cannot be preserved through hunting by providing local people a more economic use of the land as opposed to farming or ranching, the land will be devoted to farming or ranching. Most of these areas will not sustain photographic safaris. Preserving habitat for the sake of some greater social good ain’t going to fly. If hunting is not the highest and best economic use of the land it will lost to game habitat.

Mike I agree with what you have written but I have to add that it is vital to include benefits to indigenous people. Economic considerations are very important; without incentives to preserve natural resources land will be lost. However I feel that there is a human element that should not be ignored. Showing the world that hunting provides resources that are used by local people is a powerful message.

Feeding people is something that everyone can relate to and no one can argue with. Data from the WHO convincingly shows that protein consumption in sub-Saharan Africa lags significantly behind the developed world. While it isn't economically efficient to have foreign hunters come specifically to provide food for locals, meat it is an undeniable byproduct of hunting. The common perception of people unfamiliar with hunting in Africa is that we simply cut off the heads and leave the rest to rot. We can demonstrate that is simply not true. Whether we hunt on a game ranch in South Africa or in a CAMPFIRE area in Zimbabwe, the meat is utilized and does not go to waste. Documenting the meat distribution from hunting is something that could aid us greatly. This, in my opinion, is more than a "feel good argument".

We can debate among ourselves about the ethics but we need to promote to concept of sustainable use to the non-hunting community. We have an image problem as hunters and showing that hunting can benefit animals AND people would help significantly with this problem.

I have no problem with using all the arguments that are available to us. Providing protein to locals is certainly one such argument. My point was simply that if you take the total population of Africa and compare that to the amount of meat made available by hunters, while it undoubtedly is appreciated and helps, it is a drop in the bucket in addressing nutrition issues in Africa. On the other hand without habitat there will be no animals, and without hunting much of the existing habitat for animals will be lost. And I am all for a substantial portion of the dollars from hunting remaining in the local communities for boreholes, schools, clinics, farming equipment and the like. My opinion, the preserveration of habitat argument just stands up to serious scrutiny better than the nutrition argument. That said, we need to employ all the arguments we have . . . which are actually pretty damn compelling when we find venues for laying the arguments out.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:

quote:

I agree. I think the whole argument in defense of African hunting that it feeds a protein starved continent is more a feel good argument than something that holds up to scrutiny. To me the more compelling argument is that hunting preserves habitat. The biggest threat to game in Africa is the loss of habitat. And the biggest threat to habitat is population growth. The population in Africa has doubled in the last fifty years and is expected to more than double again by 2050. Those people have to have somewhere to go and some way to make a living. If game habitat cannot be preserved through hunting by providing local people a more economic use of the land as opposed to farming or ranching, the land will be devoted to farming or ranching. Most of these areas will not sustain photographic safaris. Preserving habitat for the sake of some greater social good ain’t going to fly. If hunting is not the highest and best economic use of the land it will lost to game habitat.

Mike I agree with what you have written but I have to add that it is vital to include benefits to indigenous people. Economic considerations are very important; without incentives to preserve natural resources land will be lost. However I feel that there is a human element that should not be ignored. Showing the world that hunting provides resources that are used by local people is a powerful message.

Feeding people is something that everyone can relate to and no one can argue with. Data from the WHO convincingly shows that protein consumption in sub-Saharan Africa lags significantly behind the developed world. While it isn't economically efficient to have foreign hunters come specifically to provide food for locals, meat it is an undeniable byproduct of hunting. The common perception of people unfamiliar with hunting in Africa is that we simply cut off the heads and leave the rest to rot. We can demonstrate that is simply not true. Whether we hunt on a game ranch in South Africa or in a CAMPFIRE area in Zimbabwe, the meat is utilized and does not go to waste. Documenting the meat distribution from hunting is something that could aid us greatly. This, in my opinion, is more than a "feel good argument".

We can debate among ourselves about the ethics but we need to promote to concept of sustainable use to the non-hunting community. We have an image problem as hunters and showing that hunting can benefit animals AND people would help significantly with this problem.

I have no problem with using all the arguments that are available to us. Providing protein to locals is certainly one such argument. My point was simply that if you take the total population of Africa and compare that to the amount of meat made available by hunters, while it undoubtedly is appreciated and helps, it is a drop in the bucket in addressing nutrition issues in Africa. On the other hand without habitat there will be no animals, and without hunting much of the existing habitat for animals will be lost. And I am all for a substantial portion of the dollars from hunting remaining in the local communities for boreholes, schools, clinics, farming equipment and the like. My opinion, the preserveration of habitat argument just stands up to serious scrutiny better than the nutrition argument. That said, we need to employ all the arguments we have . . . which are actually pretty damn compelling when we find venues for laying the arguments out.

100% correct Mike.

Even folks like Craig Packer and orgs like Panthera will freely admit that loosing the habitat that hunting concessions keep dedicated to wildlife...would be devastating to wildlife populations in the long run.

Preservation of habitat is our strongest argument.

quote:

Originally posted by LR3:
Fulvio and MJines. I don't disagree about the importance of habitat but the idea that the meat is not important or people's safety is ignoring the realities in Mozambique and Zimbabwe rural areas. In both I saw Kwashikor (protein malnutrition) in the last 6 years. I did not expect that but that was the case. In Mozambique they could not afford to kill a chicken that laid eggs. Zim is in similar straights. Namibia is better off but a buffalo also goes a long way to feed a lot of people. I find your reaction somewhat surprising. And in both animals not infrequently kill people.

As Mike has already said, whatever little meat reaches a villager's belly is totally insignificant and farcical to use as reason that it provides much needed protein to the undernourished population; at least try being realistic in your beliefs.

Nobody has said the meat is not important to the villagers or their safety.

I can assure you a Buffalo does not go very far when you consider half its body weight is made up of skin and bone and whatever they get from it is short-lived as they won't be getting a Buffalo a day either.

The hunting industry can be divided into two groups: one, typical of RSA outfitters, caters for the hunting clients ($) and for the butcheries (more $$) - very little (if any) of the carcasses will go to any village.

In second place are outfitters who conduct their business in mostly remote areas within the neighboring countries and where by and large, logistics are the major impediment in supplying the locals with a part of the spoils.

The ones who benefit the most are the camp staff who will dry sufficient quantities which will see them and their families through difficult times.

The percentage of injuries/deaths inflicted by wild animals is not as high or as common as you try to portray - there are more violent deaths in Chicago in a month than those caused by rogue animals on villagers in Africa in a year (I would even doubt that).

I would feel safer in the African bush than on a dark street in Brooklyn.

Please lets not be so dramatic!