Dereck Joubert responds to a hunter on the economics of hunting

Posted on 28 August, 2015 by Dereck Joubert in Conservation, Hunting — 13 Comments


Posted: August 28, 2015

1342

25 Google +1 3 2

After being sent the following offer several times from professional hunter Ivan Carter, award-winning filmmaker, Dereck Joubert decides to reply.


ivan-carter-facebook-response
Dear Ivan,

This economic case is intriguing and worth unpacking scientifically and politely. There is a blend of economics and ‘experience’ or emotion in your note, and I will attempt to separate them.

1. We have done much of this list already. Most guests in eco-tourism camps go out each day and do what most hunters do, except of course the experience is different as they actually walk more than trophy hunters do and leave the wildlife intact.

During the period from 1995 to 2003 I took notes on trophy hunting in what was called Area 6 (Linyanti Selinda) in Botswana and between 90-95% of animals were shot from vehicles so very little walking and stalking was involved. This, of course, was illegal but this discussion is about viability not infringements.

2. The photographic tourist with a camera gets up close enough to take a decent image with a 300mm lens, which is about 30% closer than a hunter has to with a high powered rifle and a telescopic sight.

3. It’s a misnomer that each buffalo costs US$3,000 to stalk. This makes a basic assumption error that once you photograph the buffalo, you cannot take another photograph of it, either that day, the next or ever again. An image taken and a bullet fired have two completely different outcomes. The argument presented also assumes that while the buffalo may live for another 15 years, no one else can visit, pay the fees or photograph the buffalo. Great Plains provides free cameras in most of its camps and the resulting statistics are revealing: most people take about 1,000 images a day. With a burn rate (those that are not keepers) of 50%, that implies 500 photographic trophies per day per person or couple! It is not fair to equate one photograph to one bullet. One bullet ends the potential. Whereas I would argue that each photograph gets taken back to the visitor’s circle of friends and serves as a brochure for more travellers to visit that same buffalo. One bullet? End of that cycle.

We once did a survey in Savuti in Botswana and calculated the value of a male lion dead (as a trophy) versus its value as an eco-tourism asset. It is complicated but its value dead was US$15,000 at that time whereas its value alive was around US$2,000,000. This is because of that basic oversight in your argument: a photographed lion yawns at the dawn repeatedly for photographs for over 10 years, attracting fees and lodging costs and also, importantly, distributing value down the chain to airlines, wages, curios, communities and food purchases (none of which were actually included in the US$2M calculation). However, one bullet ends those yawns in the sunrise forever for that lion.

Today you can hunt a lion for about US$23,000 for a male and, shockingly, just US$9,000 for a lioness! Who wants to shoot a lioness by the way? A rare white lion will set you back about US$30,000. Who wants to shoot a rare white lion and end its life? I could run the numbers again in today’s terms and we would find a proportionate increase in its value to be kept alive and wild.

© Pius Mahimbi
© Pius Mahimbi

4 An average stay at a place in Botswana like the Zarafa Dhow Suite or Mombo will cost you US$2,500 per day per person, whereas the average lodging fees for most hunting companies (I researched about 40) tends to be around US$350-$450 per person.

5. Another miscalculation is in the sum that goes to government. According to three sources, this is calculated to be less than 5% of the price paid for the trophy, rather than your calculation of a third. And one of these sources was a government of Botswana study in 1999 and later a study by Animal Rights of Africa in 2008. Similar results are cropping up in IFAW and other NGO studies.

6. All of the Great Plains camps do actually give US$100 to communities as a conservancy or community fee as do many others, so that is at least equalled in your ‘offer’. However, most hunting concessions can only service 12-15 or so hunters a year. Even on a seven day safari, that is at best 20 clients a year. So the average hunting operation produces US$15,000 in community fees in a five month hunting season. From one camp like Mara Plains, at a 60% occupancy of 14 guests per night for 12 months, the community fee would be US$306,000. Even if we remove from this any anti-poaching contribution, which on a hunting concession calculation may be US$15,000 (as per your note), a very liberal comparison would work out as a net benefit to community and conservation of US$30,000 for hunting versus US$300,000 for a photographic trip.

7. Keeping the animals alive is clearly more viable but this also increases exponentially if you take into consideration the addition of their offspring to the ecosystem. In the case of lions, each male lion would be adding a further US$2M every time a cub survives to adulthood, and lions have an average output of about six cubs in their lifetimes.

8. The entire safari cost of US$20,000-$25,000 that you quote equates to a ten day photographic safari with Great Plains. That excludes flights and tips etc. However, I see that if there are two people on a hunt, the fee goes down by about 33% for the second person so a trophy hunt for two people would be about 15% less than an average photographic safari. Hence photographic safaris in some cases already exceed the prices achieved from hunting.

9. So yes, converting that land to non-hunting ground would probably make more money, especially if your business model, which now aims at 15 people, could be increased to 100 as per your request.

10. To summarise, it is not possible to win any economic argument for hunting so it comes down to an emotional one. It is ironic that the hunting representatives urge everyone not to get emotional about the subject and yet hunters come to Africa to get the (emotional) thrill of killing. Anyone who says that it is for conservation can simply write a cheque to any of the great NGOs saving wildlife today.

The argument for hunting gets thinner each time it is tested. Ultimately, it may be reduced to some small game farms in South Africa but it should certainly not exist in the wild.

Dereck
Leupold
1342


25


3 2

Don't miss out! Get our 'Top Blogs of the Week' newsletter sent to your mail box each week. Sign up now!

Dereck Joubert
About Dereck Joubert

Dereck and Beverly Joubert are award-winning filmmakers from Botswana. Their mission is the conservation and understanding of the large predators and key African wildlife species that determine the course of all conservation in Africa.



- See more at: http://africageographic.com/bl...OCS5VZ.v6DRhJ2m.dpuf

The big flaw in Jouberts response is that he is using established photographic areas as comparison. I believe Ivan issued the challenge based on areas that are marginal/unsuitable for photo safaris such as the Zambezi Delta.

I appreciate his logical and detailed response.

I am really surprised that a ten day photographic safari would cost $20-$25k! That is interesting and definitely speaks to the economic viability of photographic safaris, if it is a typical cost.

I think Safari2 hit the nail on the head, though, that many areas that are viable for hunting are probably not viable for photo safaris.

I was happy enough only seeing tracks for three or four days of my hunt in a CAMPFIRE area, not sure the same would be true of a photographer?

IF what Joubert was saying was true then where is the demand to convert hunting blocks and concessions into photographic areas? In the allocation of scarce resources, of which certainly land is one, basic economics tells us that resources tend to be allocated to their highest and best use. So if photographic safaris were more economically advantageous and if there was adequate demand for such safaris, over time hunting blocks would all become photographic blocks. Clearly that is not the case. If and when it does become the case, then you can certainly expect that hunting blocks will in fact be converted.

This nonsense from Joubert is so far from reality that I had a hard time just finishing reading the thing.

I think my favorite part is where he accuses Ivan of being emotional about it.

Oh, also, can someone link me to an outfit that would sell me a legal, wild lion hunt for $23,000 with lodging at $450/day as per Joubert's notes above?

I had a hard time reading it as well.. It makes no sense. Nothin in that response to Ivan was based in reality as far as I could tell.

Fairly nonsensical paper.

If his numbers are correct, why do most hunting areas run a profit. (They would be abandoned otherwise)

Why do most national parks run a deficit.

He is just molding numbers to argue his own point with no concern for facts.

quote:

Ultimately, it may be reduced to some small game farms in South Africa but it should certainly not exist in the wild.

At least we know their ultimate goal.

quote:

We once did a survey in Savuti in Botswana and calculated the value of a male lion dead (as a trophy) versus its value as an eco-tourism asset. It is complicated but its value dead was US$15,000 at that time whereas its value alive was around US$2,000,000

What a load of crap, so the low end estimate is around 25,000 lions. At $2,000,000 each that brings the total value to $50 Billion dollars. So photo safaris could bring in that much money over a 10 year period in Africa?

Just because something can work in one area does not man it is good for all of Africa. After hunting was ended in Botswana how many areas were taken over by photo companies outside of the Okavango Delta.

I believe in general as hunter we feel there should be areas designated for photo safaris, too bad the photo people do not feel the same. I would love for some of these photo people come on a hunting safari. Most would be ready to leave after the first day.

quote:

During the period from 1995 to 2003 I took notes on trophy hunting in what was called Area 6 (Linyanti Selinda) in Botswana and between 90-95% of animals were shot from vehicles so very little walking and stalking was involved. This, of course, was illegal but this discussion is about viability not infringements.

So he observed every hunt and determined over an eight year period this occurred? He is full of crap. The ass would not have hesitated to turn in any hunter doing something illegal so why not turn in 90-95% of the hunters.

90-95% of all animals shot from the truck?! Total bullshit-a fact that was created in Joubert's small mind.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
I believe in general as hunter we feel there should be areas designated for photo safaris, too bad the photo people do not feel the same.

Good point there.

I have always had to walk my butt off on every hunting safari. Photo tourists will not put that kind of effort into getting a camera shot.

This letter was not meant to impress us or change our minds.
It was written for the benefit of the non hunting people that will not have a clue as to how much BS this actually is.

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:
This letter was not meant to impress us or change our minds.
It was written for the benefit of the non hunting people that will not have a clue as to how much BS this actually is.

Spot on.

This is absolute nonsense, the biggest lie was that someone in a photographic safari actually walks more than someone in a hunting safari, most of them take pictures from a car in well established photographic areas, Also a wild lion hunt being 23,000??????? Most game being shot from a car??

Ivan should give a detailed answer pointing out the BS in this so called "response", this kind of nonsense is quite harmful as there are many uninformed people out there who are willing to believe it.

My friends who have gone to Kenya and SA for photographic excursions (hardly call them safaris) spent between $3,500 to $4,500 to ride around in a Range Rover taking photos. These friends would no more walk a 100 yards (nor could they physically) than I could fart a purple monkey out my ass. Joubert is on an acid trip.

Again, what about the imagined "carbon footprint" of all those photographic vans idling? He doesn't want to make up some imaginary numbers for that?

He is full of shit
What a crock, cooked books is what I hear from Jubilee

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
He is full of shit
What a crock, cooked books is what I hear from Jubilee

He is playing the emotional game, just to make sure he is left free to line his own pockets.

How to win the hearts and minds of people who have no clue? Just make it all up and lie though your ass.

Can someone post a link to DJ response? I would like to ask him why his "model" failed miserably when he took over a hunting block in the heart of the Selous only to abandon it within 2 years?

This man can joke!
Safari tourists walk more, HA!
90 % shot from vehicles in Botswana, Dumbass!
Wild lion 15k USD, Idiot!

A few observations:

At $350/day a hunting day I'll book the concession for the whole season for myself, thank you!
At $2500 a day to take photos I'll pass, South African National Parks can have me as a guest for a month at that cost!
As an avid photographer with pro equipments as well, I am intrigued. Wildlife photography implies long lenses, long lenses needs support - that a vehicle provides, shooting free hand with 300mm f2.8 or a 600mm F4! Really? Photographers walking more than hunters, I call bullshit.
I probably need some training in photography, keeping 500 out of a 1000 images? My keeper rate of pictures that is of such a quality to be published is 3%.

Obviously Mr Joubert and I are not sharing the same reality.

If hunting so much cheaper why doesn't he and photo safari people take the offer and save some animals and money?

How does Jubert explain all breeding pride females and cubs being poisoned after the ban on lion hunting in Botswana?

His logic does not apply outside national parks, in fringe areas with pressure from villages etc.

God, I think his own mother must be embarrassed to have given birth to this cock-head !!!

This was written to provide a non hunter a go to when asked if Ivan Carter's challenge was accepted.

Then they can point out that Green or Photo safaris are the best all around. Using the above letter as support for their statements.

I have looked at different Photo tours of Africa and they are way less expensive that what he is offering. I have looked at - Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Botswana and Namibia, i receive offers to go on Photo safaris around the world as part of the class room teaching series. Learn from a professional photographer and all groups are kept small for one on one teaching assistance.

Gentleman , all the above comments about Mr. Joubert and the flaws in his argument are correct. However , John doe in the street does not know that. He believes the lauded award winning film maker who is National Geographic accredited. And why would he not ? The Jouberts have done a great PR job over the years to distinguish themselves as " experts " on conservation in Botswana and the rest of Africa. Whether this is true or not is besides the point. What has the hunting fraternity done , PR wise , that can compare to that ? Mostly we preach to the converted and get our blood pressure up. Having a liberal media off course doesn't do us any favors' either.

quote:

Originally posted by nick_adams:
I am really surprised that a ten day photographic safari would cost $20-$25k! That is interesting and definitely speaks to the economic viability of photographic safaris, if it is a typical cost

Only an idiot would pay that much.

quote:

Originally posted by nick_adams:
I appreciate his logical and detailed response.

I am really surprised that a ten day photographic safari would cost $20-$25k! That is interesting and definitely speaks to the economic viability of photographic safaris, if it is a typical cost.

I think Safari2 hit the nail on the head, though, that many areas that are viable for hunting are probably not viable for photo safaris.

I was happy enough only seeing tracks for three or four days of my hunt in a CAMPFIRE area, not sure the same would be true of a photographer?

Horsehockey! I have a friend who took his wife on a photographic safari/trip to South Africa and spent less than $6,000 for a two-week trip.

A poorly written jumble.

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:
Gentleman , all the above comments about Mr. Joubert and the flaws in his argument are correct. However , John doe in the street does not know that. He believes the lauded award winning film maker who is National Geographic accredited. And why would he not ? The Jouberts have done a great PR job over the years to distinguish themselves as " experts " on conservation in Botswana and the rest of Africa. Whether this is true or not is besides the point. What has the hunting fraternity done , PR wise , that can compare to that ? Mostly we preach to the converted and get our blood pressure up. Having a liberal media off course doesn't do us any favors' either.

The sad part is that someone does not even really need to know the facts to understand the fallacy of his argument. One would hope that someone would ask himself in reading Joubert's piece, if all that is true, then why wouldn't all the hunting safari operators simply convert to their operations to photographic safaris and get rich? You do not need to know the facts, all you need to do is think critically . . . something folks have long ago stopped doing.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:
Gentleman , all the above comments about Mr. Joubert and the flaws in his argument are correct. However , John doe in the street does not know that. He believes the lauded award winning film maker who is National Geographic accredited. And why would he not ? The Jouberts have done a great PR job over the years to distinguish themselves as " experts " on conservation in Botswana and the rest of Africa. Whether this is true or not is besides the point. What has the hunting fraternity done , PR wise , that can compare to that ? Mostly we preach to the converted and get our blood pressure up. Having a liberal media off course doesn't do us any favors' either.

The sad part is that someone does not even really need to know the facts to understand the fallacy of his argument. One would hope that someone would ask himself in reading Joubert's piece, if all that is true, then why wouldn't all the hunting safari operators simply convert to their operations to photographic safaris and get rich? You do not need to know the facts, all you need to do is think critically . . . something folks have long ago stopped doing.

Nope. It's all about emotions and reacting irrationally to your feelings. Sad state of affairs.

All Joubert did was prove that he has poor math skills.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
All Joubert did was prove that he has poor math skills.

Well, what did you expect from a geologist?

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
Can someone post a link to DJ response? I would like to ask him why his "model" failed miserably when he took over a hunting block in the heart of the Selous only to abandon it within 2 years?

Bwana - See the top of the thread! PLEASE provide details that you are aware of? I have been asked to write a response to his non-sense, I would love to see your info.

My late father used to jokingly say, "If you can't bedazzle folks with brilliance, then befuddle them with bullshit." Derek Joubert did not get wealthy by being stupid, and he well understands that quote. He has hijacked Ivan's offer, and re-framed the debate by offering statistics and economic data that all of us know to be untrue, but most people would not have the knowledge or interest to determine. Joubert's entire argument should be recognized as the red herring that it is, and summarily rejected by all of us. A "he said-he said" argument is one we cannot win. Our rebuttal is a simple and empirical one: Ivan offered to take anyone on one of his typical safaris, with the client(s) shooting photographs, then paying the daily rates and trophy fees that would be paid by a hunter. The simple fact that few, if any, people have taken Ivan up on his offer is the only evidence we need to destroy all of Joubert's phony facts, and expose his claims for the lies that they are. A generous dollop of Bwanamich's story concerning DJ's failure should seal the deal.

Aaron and fellow hunters , we have battled with Mr Joubert for more than 20 years and there is a plethora of written infomration on this in Botswana's major newspaper web sites.

1. Mr Joubert is a personal friend of His Excellency The President of Botswana and sadly in his friendship has misinformed our well intended President, who is a true conservationist and protector of our wildlife resource , Mr Joubert was one of the main people behind the closure of lion hunting and subsequent all hunting in Botswana and esp the Kalahari areas, after closure he walked away and abandoned hundreds of families that were dependant on hunting benifits ( including all the tribal trusts ) he promised photo tourism would replace these benefits - 10 years later nothing has transpired.
2. For 20 years we have been accused of illegal acts by Mr Joubert and Mr Michler , and we have requested proof so we can take action - nothing had ever been submitted - remember his dislike for hunters is deep so he would have , a long time ago, sought prosecution if these lies were true. Bear in mind , to witness a felony and not report it is also breaking the law - so if these lies were true Mr Joubert is committing a crime himself. Please be very aware we have asked , in fact pleaded for any information from Joubert and Michler to no avail.
3. When Lion hunting closed in Botswana the cheapest lion hunt you could purchase was $75 000-00 ( 2007) , the average was $100 000-00 , Mr Joubert is deliberatly under valuing hunting for publicity reasons.
4. The average observer rate in the Okavango was $600-00 per night and the average daily rate closer to $3500-00 per night , Mr Joubert is again deliberate in his misleading information.
5. We have consistently stated that if photographic tourism is more viable and can pay better benefits than hunting - then level the playing fields in the tender process open the tendering to multiple use. Without government intervention in the tender process of not allowing hunting to be a land use , it has ensured only photo based tourism can take place - on a level playing field Mr Joubert would loose his lodge and concession and his wealth, now you understand why he opposes hunting.
6. On his web site Mr Joubert and his wife promised to employ anybody who lost their job when hunting closed - when the jobless arrived they were turned away - , remember over 2500 people depended on hunting at the time but it sure made good publicity for Mr Joubert at the time as the turn aways were never reported on.
7. If you take the time to watch Mr Jouberts films you will see that the footage is not consistent - in other words he laces together footage taken of different lions and different scenes to tell a story and not the truth - this has taken over his entire life and reflects his morality that the story is better than the truth, at some stage it is hoped that a film boffin will expose the fraud his films perpetuate and mislead the poor public.

But we are talking to the converted and repeating what has been expressed over and over again - it makes no difference Botswana is closed and most of Africa will follow until hunters stand together .

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
Can someone post a link to DJ response? I would like to ask him why his "model" failed miserably when he took over a hunting block in the heart of the Selous only to abandon it within 2 years?

Bwana - See the top of the thread! PLEASE provide details that you are aware of? I have been asked to write a response to his non-sense, I would love to see your info.

The block was Selous LU2 (Leased from Ryan of Masailand hunting Safaris - now defunct) in the peiod 2012 - 2013. Their camp was called Lukula I believe and was part of his Great Plains Conservation brand.

Mr Joubert also writes that when he took over the Sinlinda concession there was no game because it was a hunting block before and hunters shot all the game out and how he managed it back to a viable concession . I then uncovered a article he wrote for AiBotswana in flight mag. In this article he writes that the Silinda spillway had dried up and all the game had moved out then the floods came ( 10 years later ) and with it the game returned . You need to understand he will never ruin a good story with the truth , watch his films and the continuity of the lions and the background vegetation - he splices completely different lions and scenes to tell a story - the reality and the truth have no bearing in his world. He will continue to be a voice against hunting as he is connected with Hollywood.

quote:

Originally posted by kallie404:
Dereck Joubert responds to a hunter on the economics of hunting


Posted on 28 August, 2015 by Dereck Joubert in Conservation, Hunting — 13 Comments

[QUOTE]Dear Ivan,

This economic case is intriguing and worth unpacking scientifically and politely. There is a blend of economics and ‘experience’ or emotion in your note, and I will attempt to separate them.

1. We have done much of this list already. Most guests in eco-tourism camps go out each day and do what most hunters do, except of course the experience is different as they actually walk more than trophy hunters do and leave the wildlife intact.

During the period from 1995 to 2003 I took notes on trophy hunting in what was called Area 6 (Linyanti Selinda) in Botswana and between 90-95% of animals were shot from vehicles so very little walking and stalking was involved. This, of course, was illegal but this discussion is about viability not infringements.

In my opinion the quote above in bold print is simply an out and out lie!

quote:

2. The photographic tourist with a camera gets up close enough to take a decent image with a 300mm lens, which is about 30% closer than a hunter has to with a high powered rifle and a telescopic sight.

The above may be true of some plains game in open terrain where getting closer is not possible, but with dangerous game like buffalo, and or Elephant one must get close to assure a precise shot. Lion and Leopard are traditionally shot over a bait and shots are most often in very poor light of very early morning , or just prior to total dark. These shots are normally taken within 35 yards for leopard and no more than sixty yards for lion all from a grass blind that offers no protection to the hunter at all. The bait makes the time to age and sex the cat so as to not take a juvenile or female. That is almost impossible at a quick glance when encountered moving through the bush.

Plus the hunter has to walk in to this little blind in darkness with no lights with the cats feeding on the bait. In the case of lions this usually includes the whole pride. Mr. Joubert this activity is not for the faint of heart!

quote:

It’s a misnomer that each buffalo costs US$3,000 to stalk.

Joubert you are correct in the case above each Cape buffalo does have a harvest fee of US $3000, or higher depending on where the hunt takes place. But there is a Dailey fee that starts today at around $ us700, to us $1500 per day and a minimum of 7 days in some areas to 14 days in others to take a cape buffalo. The average cape buffalo safari today runs upwards of us$15000 if the only thing taken is a buffalo.

quote:

We once did a survey in Savuti in Botswana and calculated the value of a male lion dead (as a trophy) versus its value as an eco-tourism asset. It is complicated but its value dead was US$15,000[B] at that time whereas its value alive was around US$2,000,000.

The above would be the case if that lion taken was the only one people photograph! Or if the lion was hunted in a park where he was the only one to photograph. Even if the lion comes out of the park into a hunting area, and is shot, it is a fair bet he was not the only lion in that park for the guests to photo. In the case of the lion that started all this nonsense, it was known that he moved in and out of the park so it was no surprise to the park people because he was electronically collared and when an animal leaves the park into a hunting area he becomes part of the surplus of that concession’s quota. In the case of the lion given a human name there was no lion quota where he was shot, but how are we to know if the hunter knew he was not in a concession that had a quota, when he had a legal lion tag, and is fifteen thousand miles away from his home, depending of locals to place him in a legal quota area. Hunters do not condone illegal shooting of a lion or any animal but let's place the blame where it belongs.

However the lions taken by hunters are taken in legal hunting areas not parks, and the animals taken are the surplus for that area taken from a mandated quota. The us$15000 to take a male lion today will barely cover the harvest fee, however the days required ( usually 21 days)to be booked @ us$1500 to $2000 daily fee will bring that hunt close to us$100,000 all in. Above that there is no guarantee that the hunter will get a lion, but whether he does or not the daily fees and the cost of charter flight, and his round trip flight is paid regardless and those two little expenses will also benefit the economy of hundreds of people from the hunter’s door back to his door whether he shoots a lion or not.

[QUOTE]Today you can hunt a lion for about US$23,000 for a male and, shockingly, just US$9,000 for a lioness![/QOUTE]

The above is pure BS and I think you know that Mr. Joubert! There is no way any one can book a lion hunt for US$23,000 today! Maybe for the harvest fee, but that is not all that the hunter is out. If he doesn’t take a lion, as I said above, the other charges are due and payable before the hunter gets back home empty handed and out $60K or $70K out of his bank account. That money didn't just disappear, it went into the pockets of people all along the way of the hunter's travels.

Mr. Joubert loves to low ball the costs paid by the hunter and who benefits from his money, while inflating the value assigned to a single lion filmed by eco-tourists who wouldn’t know a wild lion from a zoo animal, and insinuates all income from filming lions in a given park is lost because a single lion walked off the reservation, and was shot!

……………Typical of the miss information posted by anti hunting types!
/....................................................................................