I know Im preaching to the choir here but im sure some of you will enjoy reading this.

Evidence of the real value of hunting as a conservation tool.

I haven’t posted much about the importance of trophy hunting in a while. Two things have got me going this time, one I shall save for post 2. There is a recent post by Zambia Carnivore Program (ZCP) reporting the incredible trans-national dispersal of wild dogs. As many may know, African wild dogs are listed as Endangered on the IUCN RED LIST.

ZCP is a conservation NGO focusing on carnivore research and conservation in Zambia. They do a tremendous amount of work for conservation and are good at educating the hunting community on how to improve our conservation efforts. And they are not pro hunting. Can you imagine?

The post that ZCP have made shows how a pack of wild dogs have moved from their natal range - a hunting area adjacent to the South Luangwa NP - all the way down the Luangwa Valley, into the Luano Valley, across the border into northern Mozambique and back into Zambia into the Lower Zambezi NP. A record trip of over 1,600 km.

You will notice, from the map generated using the collar data collected by ZCP, that the wild dogs travelled through a small portion of National Park but largely spent most of their time in Game Management Areas, community areas and Private Wildlife Reserves. The former and latter are funded, almost exclusively, by revenue generated through trophy hunting. In Mozambique they move in the Tchuma Tchato Community reserve. I’m not qualified to say anything about the status of areas in Mozambique except that it is a reserve of some sort.

When boundaries were drawn for National Parks and hunting areas in Zambia, the most wildlife dense and aesthetically pleasing areas were chosen for photographic tourism. These National Parks account for only 1/3 the national Wildlife Estate, roughly 10% of Zambia’s surface area. Most of them are considered “paper parks”.

The buffer areas, equally important to species preservation as the conservation narrative was at the time, were designated for various forms of natural resources use – including trophy and meat hunting – due to lower wildlife densities in many cases, but also due to inaccessibility and subpar scenery not to mention the plague of tsetse flies and sleeping sickness. These GMA’s account for 2/3 the Wildlife Estate, approx. 20% Zambia’s surface area. Most lodges in the South Luangwa area are in fact inside a GMA and not the NP itself.

Now to my point – trophy hunting has protected vast tracts of wildlife area, maintaining population connectivity and habitat integrity. Wild dogs are not a huntable species, anywhere, and their presence can be used as a proxy for overall wildlife health in a given area. If it were not for the presence of hunting in the Lower Luangwa, Luano and Lower Zambezi GMAs, these wild dogs likely would not have made it this far, as we have seen in the past with other collared individuals (reported on by ZCP).

Now to the real point. The biggest threat to all wildlife in Africa is habitat loss. You can ask any respected conservation professional, for or against trophy hunting, and they will agree with this. If they don’t, they probably haven’t spent much time in Africa or read a basic textbook, or even just looked at the IUCN Red List website.

If hunting were to be banned, by international neo-colonial coercion, it would take a decade, maybe less, to eradicate not only the vital wildlife that reside within hunting areas but also the more important habitat. Reintroduction programs only work when there is suitable habitat, that option would be gone entirely.

Artificial selection is certainly true of trophy hunting, we select males with desirable traits – large horns, big body, big mane, large tusks, beautiful pattern – but we also only select the oldest males we can find, thereby ensuring their genes have been passed on. For the hunting community to continue arguing all trophy males are always past breeding age is, IMO, not factually correct and we need to get away from it. That is a topic for another post perhaps.
Of the non-huntable species in Zambia, such as wild dog, cheetah and giraffe, trophy hunting protects habitat, prey species and dispersal corridors for population connectivity. In other words, gene flow and diversity are supported.
Trophy hunting is indisputably protecting wildlife and, more importantly, habitat which is far more urgent at this alarming point in human history.

So, I ask you: are you willing to take the risk? To gamble Africa’s natural resources, future sustainability and rural livelihoods all because you can’t stomach a few (sometimes, understandably) disturbing photos? Do you believe you, the global West, have more right to make that decision than the people to whom the wildlife belongs?


 

Following from my previous post on wild dogs, the second thing that has prompted me to write is the circulation of a news clip on the recent hunting of a big elephant in Botswana.

I’ll avoid going into detail about the news clip, you can watch it here: https://youtu.be/algPcjAVfhA

What fascinates me is that we all, both anti and pro hunting, miss the real problem. We base our arguments on feelings, the state of humans and egotistical ideals of what nature and conservation look like.

Back to the news clip about the 100 pound elephant shot in Botswana. There were three points that got my attention. First, the estimate number on 100 pound elephant left in Africa. Second, that only 3% of total revenue makes it to the community in the area. Third, the claim that this 100 pound elephant had the potential to earn millions of dollars for conservation over its lifetime.

1 - In Botswana there is a conservative estimate of 130,000 elephant and many recon the country can only safely sustain a population of 50-60,000 elephant. Then ‘they’ estimate only 24-48 elephant with tusks over 100 pound remain in Africa. I’m not a clever dude but when an estimate varies by 100% it means two things: no one actually knows and the estimate is not reliable. If they have managed to hunt two elephant in Botswana around 100 pounds in one season then there must be a few left if they managed to find two amongst 130,000 in what were likely 10-day hunts.
The true point here is that Botswana issues less than 500 trophy permits per year which is less than 0.4% of the population while elephant population growth rates are generally between 4-6% per annum. If you think hunting 0.4% can harm that elephant population in anyway then you are not qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

2 – it was quoted that only 3% of hunting revenue reaches the community. I have not read these reports and can therefore not give an official opinion on this, however it doesn’t sound correct and I believe that communities deserve a significant percentage of hunting profits. What I do know is that 3% of $50,000 can actually make a huge difference to the people living and competing with these animals. In our area in Zambia, that could get a community a borehole which can be a life saver for the people. For the people out here its about survival and not about getting rich. When they say 3% reaching the community I with my knowledge would assume they mean the actual cash that goes directly to the members of the community. The fact is that a large chunk of the rest of the money will be spent on protection of the area, salaries for staff and maintenance of the area. Looking after these areas comes at a huge cost both financial and physical.

3 – The anti-hunting guest was Giles Clark, Director of the Big Cats Sanctuary in Kent, UK. He has dedicated his life to big cat conservation via captive (zoo) animals. It doesn’t seem like he’s spent much time on the ground in Africa, perhaps on holiday for quick workshops. He argues that this big old bull elephant had the potential to bring in millions of dollars throughout his lifetime via photo-tourism. This is true, but elephants die one day either naturally or being poached, both horrific and both without making a profit to protect his offspring. The alternative scenario is trophy hunting, combing the millions of dollars from photo-tourism with trophy revenue and meat to rural communities. That’s a lot better and much more sustainable. The truth is, most places with elephants do NOT receive such huge amounts of tourist revenue from live elephants and most of it still does not trickle down to local communities. Luxury safari lodges make nice profit margins without having to personally conserve thousands of square kilometers of wilderness; hunting operators rarely make substantial profit and most operate at a deficit because they invest so much into the conservation and development of their areas.

Professor Amy Dickman, Director of Oxford University’s WildCRU (Wildlife and Conservation Research Unit) with many years of experience on the ground, publicly stated that, for the protection of species and habitat in Africa, even the presence of “bad hunting” is better than no hunting. If that is the professional opinion of an experienced and well respected scientist, then perhaps the best argument would be to ensure there is no “bad hunting” instead of “no hunting at all”.

As I always say at the end of my anti-hunting rants, I challenge anyone who believes I’m wrong to show me a VIABLE, tested alternative. I will be happy to change my ways if they manage. And this will obviously be at own cost. I have already sacrificed for wildlife and will continue to do so, have you?

So if you want to be part of the solution, go buy yourself a photographic trip to a part of Africa that really needs it, not Kruger, Tsavo, Serengeti, Okavango, Mara. There is no single viable socio-economic activity that will protect all of Africa’s natural places, and nor should there be. With socio-political situations as diverse as the wildlife, so too should be the economic activities that support conservation. I do not know a single hunter who thinks hunting should be permitted everywhere, we also value photo-tourism for what it is and can be. It’s time the reverse was also true.

I agree Thor, good post.
I saw wild dogs in Northern Mozambique last September, it was an awesome experience.

The Blood Origins podcast has had 4 good episodes on the recent Botswana elephant hunt. I thought the one with Ivan Carter was the best. Definitely worth a listen if you have the time.

Thank you for this - more (detailed) evidence supporting what we know to be true. Helps to educate ourselves to help educate the rest.