https://www.news24.com/Africa/...de-zim-park-20180421



Hunters shoot dead second collared bull elephant outside Zim park


2018-04-21 16:15


Hunters in Zimbabwe have shot dead a bull elephant collared by scientists for research purposes, the second such killing in a month, a conservation group says.

The elephant was killed on April 12 by a hunter and his client in a hunting area just outside Gonarezhou National Park, where another collared bull elephant was shot in similar circumstances on March 7.

‘Significant blow’

A national parks ranger who was monitoring the hunt has been suspended and the elephant’s ivory confiscated pending the outcome of an investigation, said the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust (GCT).

It called the latest killing “a significant blow to conservation efforts”.

It is not illegal for a hunter to kill an animal with a collar, though it is deemed unethical.

“The (safari) operator was well aware of the ethical stance and, as a result of previous similar incidences, was aware of the potential for collared individuals to roam into hunting areas outside the park,” the trust said in a statement.

11 000 elephants

Zimbabwe’s main hunters’ association hasn’t yet commented on the incident. Zimbabwe's hunting industry was thrust into the spotlight in 2015 after a US hunter shot dead Cecil, a collared lion popular with tourists, after the animal strayed outside Hwange National Park.

GCT says it has collared more than 20 large bull elephants to monitor their movements and gather data for conservation purposes. Gonarezhou is said to have around 11 000 elephants, one of the highest concentrations in Africa.

https://fzs.org/en/news/joint-press-statement-gct/
Collared elephant bull shot adjacent to the Gonarezhou National Park


The Gonarezhou Conservation Trust (GCT), a partnership between the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA) and the Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS), is saddened to announce the shooting of another one of its collared elephant bull by a professional hunter and his client in an area adjacent to the National Park on the afternoon of 11 April 2018.


Gonarezhou / Frankfurt, 17 April 2018

The GCT, on behalf of ZPWMA and FZS, is extremely disappointed by the loss of this collared elephant, particularly considering the ongoing efforts to engage with hunting operators outside of the Park’s boundaries. Incidents such as these threaten to undo much of the progress made and reinforce the need for stricter adherence to the ethical code of conduct for any hunting around the Park. It is a significant blow to conservation efforts in the greater ecosystem and can only serve to reinforce GCT’s commitment to protecting both these animals and their habitats.


As a result of the long-running and successful partnership between the ZPWMA and FZS, the elephant population within the National Park is very well protected. The Park itself has a globally significant and healthy elephant population estimated at over 11,000 individuals and at a density of 2 elephants/km² is one of the highest concentrations of elephants in Africa. Currently there are no fences that limit the movement of elephants or other wildlife out of the Gonarezhou National Park and they are free to wander into the wider ecosystem. In an effort to understand the dynamics of this population, and specifically their behaviour in the context of the wider ecosystem and the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA), a number of exercises were carried out to place satellite collars on a total of 22 individual elephants in the Park by GCT, the University of Zimbabwe and the Makoholi Research Institute. This would assist in highlighting the potential options for natural linkages within the GLTFCA ecosystem as well as to provide data that could be used in mitigating the conflict between humans and elephants outside of the park boundary.


On Thursday 12 April 2018 at 10h54, through a report made to the ZPWMA Officer in Charge at Mabalauta in the south of the National Park, GCT were alerted to the shooting of one of the Park’s collared elephant bulls in a hunt conducted by a professional hunter and his client outside the Gonarezhou in the Gonakudzingwa area. Whilst it is not illegal for a hunter to shoot a collared elephant, the general position taken by the Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association (ZHPGA) is that it is unethical and should be avoided wherever possible. In his statement recorded after the hunt, the operator was well aware of the ethical stance and, as a result of previous similar incidences, was aware of the potential for collared individuals to roam into hunting areas outside of the Park. Thus, as a precautionary measure, GCT has taken to suspend the ranger assigned to monitor the hunt and, as per recommendation, has confiscated the ivory pending the outcome of an investigation.


In the wake of a similar incident on the 7 March 2018, GCT had intensified its efforts to monitor the movement of the collared elephants. Whilst the capability to observe the movement of these collared animals in real time does not currently exist, GCT is in the process of developing a monitoring system that can provide real time alerts of collared individuals leaving the boundary of the Gonarezhou National Park. It is thus particularly unfortunate that this capability was not available in time to potentially prevent this tragedy.

Anyone knows the names of those involved in this disaster?

We need to send them a thank you note for their continued support of hunting!

Though I have never caught or shot a tagged, banded, or collard animal, it is common to report same to the agency that affixed the tracking information to the animal. It is also not a crime to take such game.

Therefore, why the fuss when such an animal, bird or fish is legally taken?

I don't know the circumstances of the hunt....but if its "just" that they shot a collared animal - then there should be absolutely not a single problem in the world with that?

Research....research my ass! If research was the real goal, then any good scientist wants the "real life / factual" data as to what would happen to this elephant over the course of its life....including potential of death from legal hunting! To manipulate the outcome of this elephant's life because it wears a collar, is to manipulate the factual data one might accumulate as the folks conducting the research!! That's not science, that's human manipulation!

Mortality amongst wildlife comes in many different forms....including legal hunting! A fact that plays as part of the whole of scientific learning / studying. I've had this conversation with numerous "scientists" in Africa, not anti-hunting groups posing as scientists, and each of them have agreed with me 100%!!!! All they ask is PLEASE return their collar, its expensive!

In 2002 I shot "Cecil's" papa on Antoinette, the same exact place Cecil was shot 12 yrs later / and they claim Cecil was 12 at the time of his death! The male I shot was also collared, a fact we did not know until we walked up on him. The following morning we called Dr. Andy Loveridge - the same guy who collared Cecil. We told him we had his collar, he came to the property immediately to retrieve it.

He was very cordial, told me he knew it was only a matter of time until this lion was shot - as he was continually leaving the park more and more frequently. He was kind enough to give me some history on my lion, tell me about him, etc. All of which I found interesting to say the least. He too made the comment - this is an important part of our study! Which is to understand the effects hunting has on the lions, along with all of the other day to day issues they endure! To have not shot that lion simply because he was collared would have been to falsely manipulate the data....period! We had a legal permit, conducted a legal hunt, and the good scientist got actual / factual data as to the outcome of this lion!

Its called science...not man made / manipulated data, that could be non-factual based on the "feelings" of those conducting the study!!! We do the same here in the USA, especially with sheep / mtn lions, etc. There's no issue at all with shooting a collared animal - they rely on that data to give a "factual / accurate" outcome of the animal in question!

Can you see the collar???

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Though I have never caught or shot a tagged, banded, or collard animal, it is common to report same to the agency that affixed the tracking information to the animal. It is also not a crime to take such game.

Therefore, why the fuss when such an animal, bird or fish is legally taken?

I would say there is a difference between 10,000 tagged ducks that are not under general threat and 20 bull elephant. Just that the opportunity to tag a bull worth tagging and watching is much smaller than a duck.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Though I have never caught or shot a tagged, banded, or collard animal, it is common to report same to the agency that affixed the tracking information to the animal. It is also not a crime to take such game.

Therefore, why the fuss when such an animal, bird or fish is legally taken?

I would say there is a difference between 10,000 tagged ducks that are not under general threat and 20 bull elephant. Just that the opportunity to tag a bull worth tagging and watching is much smaller than a duck.

What difference? Scientific / factual data is just that! Either one wants the "real" data, or one wants manipulated data....that simple!

No personal knowledge of this other than what has been written. However, if you take the GCT press release at its face as "fact" -

quote:

The Park itself has a globally significant and healthy elephant population estimated at over 11,000 individuals and at a density of 2 elephants/km² is one of the highest concentrations of elephants in Africa.

That may be the exact reason the elephants are moving out of the park - over population. They are simply trying to "naturally" reduce their own over population density by "naturally" leaving the unrestricted confines/boundaries of the park. Old bulls might "naturally" be leaving/seeking new territory.

quote:

A national parks ranger who was monitoring the hunt has been suspended and the elephant’s ivory confiscated pending the outcome of an investigation, said the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust (GCT).

It called the latest killing “a significant blow to conservation efforts”.

It is not illegal for a hunter to kill an animal with a collar, though it is deemed unethical.

“The (safari) operator was well aware of the ethical stance and, as a result of previous similar incidences, was aware of the potential for collared individuals to roam into hunting areas outside the park,” the trust said in a statement.

If this is the official/unofficial opinion of the Government then the rest doesn't matter. If I payed 60k for an Elephant hunt and my ivory was confiscated because my PH gave me the green light knowing it was legal, but frowned upon, I would be furious. As a hunting client that's all that matters. The rest is just the way we wish the world was...

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Though I have never caught or shot a tagged, banded, or collard animal, it is common to report same to the agency that affixed the tracking information to the animal. It is also not a crime to take such game.

Therefore, why the fuss when such an animal, bird or fish is legally taken?

I would say there is a difference between 10,000 tagged ducks that are not under general threat and 20 bull elephant. Just that the opportunity to tag a bull worth tagging and watching is much smaller than a duck.

What difference? Scientific / factual data is just that! Either one wants the "real" data, or one wants manipulated data....that simple!

Aaron,

I hear you but it was agreed by all parties that these elephant would be left alone as it was deemed unethical to hunt them. Therefore that agreement has again been trashed by hunters. The world is not going to listen to our argument my friend and we have to be cautious in what we do and incidents such as these do us immeasurable harm.

As one of the largest populations of elephant remaining in Africa it is not in our interest to target the 20 odd research animals especially when we are trying to win back some credibility amongst the masses.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Though I have never caught or shot a tagged, banded, or collard animal, it is common to report same to the agency that affixed the tracking information to the animal. It is also not a crime to take such game.

Therefore, why the fuss when such an animal, bird or fish is legally taken?

I would say there is a difference between 10,000 tagged ducks that are not under general threat and 20 bull elephant. Just that the opportunity to tag a bull worth tagging and watching is much smaller than a duck.

What difference? Scientific / factual data is just that! Either one wants the "real" data, or one wants manipulated data....that simple!

Aaron,

I hear you but it was agreed by all parties that these elephant would be left alone as it was deemed unethical to hunt them. Therefore that agreement has again been trashed by hunters. The world is not going to listen to our argument my friend and we have to be cautious in what we do and incidents such as these do us immeasurable harm.

As one of the largest populations of elephant remaining in Africa it is not in our interest to target the 20 odd research animals especially when we are trying to win back some credibility amongst the masses.

100%. Exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Though I have never caught or shot a tagged, banded, or collard animal, it is common to report same to the agency that affixed the tracking information to the animal. It is also not a crime to take such game.

Therefore, why the fuss when such an animal, bird or fish is legally taken?

I would say there is a difference between 10,000 tagged ducks that are not under general threat and 20 bull elephant. Just that the opportunity to tag a bull worth tagging and watching is much smaller than a duck.

What difference? Scientific / factual data is just that! Either one wants the "real" data, or one wants manipulated data....that simple!

Aaron,

I hear you but it was agreed by all parties that these elephant would be left alone as it was deemed unethical to hunt them. Therefore that agreement has again been trashed by hunters. The world is not going to listen to our argument my friend and we have to be cautious in what we do and incidents such as these do us immeasurable harm.

As one of the largest populations of elephant remaining in Africa it is not in our interest to target the 20 odd research animals especially when we are trying to win back some credibility amongst the masses.

100%. Exactly.

I understand the "point" you guys are making.......but its NOT science, its human emotion / manipulation of the facts! I can't say you two are "wrong", and I can only say that I do not agree. Nor do "real" scientists!!

I think the science part of collaring a bull is to gather as much data as possible. If a bull was hypothetically collared in the park, walked out, and 3
months later was killed, the science ends as artificially as if you make a decision not to shoot because of the presence of the collar. Both are manipulation unless the entire point of collaring was to know when a specific bull was shot. But then again you don’t need to collar to gain that information. We’ll agree to disagree on this.

Aaron,
No, I can not see the collar.
I do agree with you and with Gusteaux - it is apparent that the park has an excess population of ele and what is natural in such an environment?
Some of the population will depart looking for greener pastures. It happens all the time. I recently read that the cougars being seen and sometimes killed in the Northeastern USA has migrated there from an over population in the Dakotas. SURPRISE, SURPRISE! NATURE AT WORK.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Though I have never caught or shot a tagged, banded, or collard animal, it is common to report same to the agency that affixed the tracking information to the animal. It is also not a crime to take such game.

Therefore, why the fuss when such an animal, bird or fish is legally taken?

I would say there is a difference between 10,000 tagged ducks that are not under general threat and 20 bull elephant. Just that the opportunity to tag a bull worth tagging and watching is much smaller than a duck.

What difference? Scientific / factual data is just that! Either one wants the "real" data, or one wants manipulated data....that simple!

Aaron,

I hear you but it was agreed by all parties that these elephant would be left alone as it was deemed unethical to hunt them. Therefore that agreement has again been trashed by hunters. The world is not going to listen to our argument my friend and we have to be cautious in what we do and incidents such as these do us immeasurable harm.

As one of the largest populations of elephant remaining in Africa it is not in our interest to target the 20 odd research animals especially when we are trying to win back some credibility amongst the masses.

100%. Exactly.

+1

It seems self evident that the motive for collaring the biggest bulls is to “protect” them from hunters.

They are the ones in demand by the photo safari folks for the impressive pictures.

It sounds to me that FZS and the parks folks want the big bulls protected, but the revenue from hunting the elephants is needed and the folks living nearby need the elephant coming out of the park controlled.

I guess unless they are willing to charge reduced rates to tell the clients that they cannot shoot the biggest bulls, you are going to have issues.

I personally have issues with collaring the biggest elephant and then call shooting them unethical while at the same time marketing the hunts as being on a park border and thus more likely to find a truly big bull.

I find it disingenuous for parks to try and protect the biggest for the photo folks under the guise of science.

We had an issue with this on black bear here in MN a while back. The researchers had acclimated some bears and were anti hunting bunny huggers. The DNR stated that while collared bear were legal, please don’t shoot them. The bears and the bear cam was making a lot of money and PR for the researchers. The locals had enough of the researchers behavior, and a lot of locals targeted those bears. The popular one was shot.

In essence the researcher reaped what he had sowed.

Given the issue, with big tuskers and US politics, it hurts us. Given that the clients are Russians, I don’t think it matters to them, and they may well see it as reducing prices if we ban it.

I have to admit I see no good here for us or proper conservation given the politics, but I find it hard to claim it’s unethical.

I really have no idea how many tagged ducks and other birds we have shot throughout the years.

Are we really trying to equate a tag on the leg of a bird, where there are millions of them, and the tags purpose is to see where that birds end, and an elephant selected, and collared with an enormous collar that can be seen very clearly, and in the current situation of us having such a hard time fighting anti hunting sentiments?

If some of you still cannot realize this, may be the confiscation of the ivory might wake you up.

We keep saying we should police ourselves.

With collared elephants, we failed miserabley in policing ourselves.

And the authorities have taken notice of that, and decided we are not good enough at it.

I am still waiting to hear what excuse this sorry pair of PH and client had in deciding to shoot this one.

Especially after what had happened before.

Because "we did not see any collar" is not going to hold any water any more.

+1. And this is not a situation where they are collaring elephants by the hundreds to protect them. We are talking about 20 collared bulls out of a population in excess of 10,000 . . . that is less than .2%.

Think of it this way. The Frankfurt Zoological Society is trying to act reasonably. They are only collaring a handful, literally, of the elephant in the park and working to inform local operators of the collared elephant movement. On the other hand hunters take the view that we can and will kill any damn bull we want, collared or not, if it wanders out the park. We have a group like FZS trying to be a constructive partner and hunters essentially say f*** off. We deserve whatever negative fallout comes our way frankly and you start to see why groups like FZS can be anti-hunting.

Then why not ask/tell the operators and the hunters on the borders of Ghonarhezou to avoid shooting anything over 75#?

Make it a condition of the hunt AND make sure the clients are aware of the fact.

We on AR are aware of the issue regarding this, but I am willing to bet the client hunters are not- and the hunt was undoubtedly marketed to them, like the hunts Nixon Dzingai was doing as a potential for 100# ivory as they were on the park border.

I would be more sympathetic towards FZS on this if the elephant in the room (pardon the pun) wasn't trying to avoid having the 100#'ers shot that is the whole marketing purpose for these border hunts.

I agree not shooting 20 elephants out of 10,000 plus is not too terribly unreasonable, but lets be honest. Its not unethical to hunt down one of these bulls via fair chase and then kill it.

Is it desirable? No.

But not unethical unless the PH is told that this bull is coming into the area and then decides he is going to shoot it to get a huge tip because he has been told it has moved into his hunting area (in other words, not fair chase.)

We should be proud of our actions as hunters and happy to defend those actions to a skeptical public. In this instance it is hard not to be embarrassed. FZS is not acting unreasonably in collaring 20 park elephant (elephant that spend the bulk of their lives in the park) and working with local operators to let them know when those bulls move out of park. Then one collared elephant is shot a few weeks ago and the excuse is that we had no clue. Now another is shot. How is the public supposed to view us? Are we proud of how we have conducted ourselves in this instance? Does anyone really belief that FZS is acting unreasonably to collar and seek to protect less than .2% of the national park elephant population? I cannot blame groups like FZS from concluding that hunters are not interested in finding common ground in the pursuit of conservation.

if they don't want the elephants shot then they should either keep them in their yard, or close the hunting around the park.

the ethics thing goes both directions.
they knew there was hunting in the area, they sold the tags and took the trophy fee's.

the leaders, park officials, etc. are just as guilty as the P/H and hunter.
more so in my eyes.

Mike, my complaint is you are using loaded language.

If the hunt was done in a fair chase manner, and the PH was not informed that that bull was in his area at that time (not a general there may be collared bulls here statement) its not unethical for a hunter to target a legal animal, especially when the hunt was likely sold to the client as a chance to get big bulls wandering out of the park.

I can agree that it would be unethical if the hunt was sold as "we are hunting on the border of the park, and thus we are not going to shoot any big bulls but rather target the smaller, more numerous crop raiders." and then to go ahead and tell the PH that if I get a bull over 100#, you will get a $100K tip despite the agreement at booking...

If the outfitter had brought the quota on the understanding he was trying to shoot the giant bulls if they slipped up and went across the border and then they change the rules midstream, he would be right to be mad, and the government unethical.

The hunter would then only be unethical if he was told he could not target the big bulls.

There is a HUGE difference between unethical and unpopular or selfish, much less illegal.

If this was one of MP's clients, then yes MP would be unethical, as he well knows now he should not be doing this...but the client? Depends on what he knew and agreed to.

quote:

r close the hunting around the park.

What a great idea!

How many miles outside the park should they ban hunting?

Then some bloody idiot will shoot one just inside that no hunt boundary, then we should say "why don't you make that boundary larger?

Lovely argument!

As hunters continue to find themselves under a public microscope and see their rights whittled away, when we consider examples like this, we really have no one to blame but ourselves. Our actions are going to be judged in the court of public opinion whether we like it or not. Hunting is a privilege, not a right. We have a tough enough time defending our actions under the best of circumstances. When, as here, we look irresponsible and selfish, we should not complain when public sentiment turns against us.

True, but it is not anything unethical here.

Rather it is a PR problem.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
True, but it is not anything unethical here.

Rather it is a PR problem.

I think it is more like a very selfish problem, from both the client and the professional hunter.

Both elephants were shot quite legally; collar or band on an animal does in no way protect it and as Aaron quite rightly stated, these contraptions were fitted for data-gathering and if a tagged animal were legally killed by human hand, the collar be somehow returned.

We hunters have however been targeted by the animal-lovers and anti-hunting community in general and a war has been waged against us.

Like it or not it is actions such as shooting collared animals that stokes the fire more than shooting one without (even though neither is acceptable) and if we want to level the playing field, we ought to seriously think about making some compromises - like not shooting collared species and keeping the antis happy; not so much the researchers because it will prove that whatever "scientific" data they have to offer in the future will be manipulated.

It might be time for outfitters to be given electronic devices that will blip if they come within range of a collared animal.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
True, but it is not anything unethical here.

Rather it is a PR problem.

Quote from FZS - Whilst it is not illegal for a hunter to shoot a collared elephant, the general position taken by the Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association (ZHPGA) is that it is unethical and should be avoided wherever possible. In his statement recorded after the hunt, the operator was well aware of the ethical stance and, as a result of previous similar incidences, was aware of the potential for collared individuals to roam into hunting areas outside of the Park.

Martin Peters got away with it, twice, so others think it is ok.

Hopefully now they have confiscated their ivory, others might take note.

I believe those who are arguing the legalities are missing the point. When I queried this with National Parks, the reply to my WhatsApp was the same as with the previous elephant: "The elephant issue no offence was committed". You will find that the suspension of the ranger and the seizure (seize is not a synonym for confiscate) of the ivory is part of a Parks PR exercise to put the best face possible on it. The export will be allowed.

If the hunt was outside the park and if the animal was on quota there, then no offence has been committed, QED.

The real point is that hunters need to start doing themselves favors, because clearly no one else is going to do them any. This starts with the PH. There needs to be a consensus on what will be shot and what won't. It is pointless doing this through ZPHGA because PHs don't have to be members to be licensed.

There also has to be wriggle room with issues like ivory size and collars, but if operators don't start doing better things, laws will be enacted.

This is about PR. Being SEEN to be going the extra mile for conservation is what is needed now; we all know who PAYS for most of the conservation in Africa, so now hunters and especially operators need to start doing themselves some favors.

quote:

It is pointless doing this through ZPHGA because PHs don't have to be members to be licensed.

Could be one of the contributing problems?

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

It is pointless doing this through ZPHGA because PHs don't have to be members to be licensed.

Could be one of the contributing problems?

Being member of a professional organization has never stop some being idiots!

Maybe that shooter was paid by the antis? No hunter with brain would kill a collared elephant. But on the other hand, amongst hunters are plenty of idiots.

quote:

it was deemed UNETHICAL to hunt them.

The one concept that will do more to bring about the end of hunting than anything else.

No country, state or province has lost hunting rights because of unethical behavior. Those wanting to ban hunting view it all as unethical. When they talk the majority on the fence it’s in this abhorrent unethical attitude. They will never EVER concede because of ethics. Now, does it help us to be ethical? Of course, all groups have a code, a standard of being. Is there grey areas? Oh boy, lots! This discussion on here is full of bullshit talk. Most days we tout the conservation thru hunting model. Espousing local, national and global benefits....until the collar comes up. Which is true? Did the local and national community benefit from collaring this animal? Is there a conservation benefit from this collar? Cue crickets. Did the local and national community benefit from the hunt? Any proceeds going to conservation? We did not nor will not lose imports or privileges due to their or our definition of unethical behavior. And PS the public doesn’t give a shit about Africa or this issue.

It is a Black Eye for hunters.

The antis have done a splendid job of turning the non hunting public against trophy hunting in general....they've done an even better job of using the MSM/Social Media to shame hunters, Outfitters, Phs and Governments for partaking or allow it.

So... as long as Governments like Zimbabwe are allowed to feel shamed and chastized by the media ever time one of these stories gets out, they will have no choice but to Publicly side with the antis and privately side with hunters who pay the bills. Quite simply really....

We have done a poor job of educating the public, getting the media on our side and shaming those who actually deserve it...until then we will lose this PR battle every time.

The noise is already starting on social media.

https://www.facebook.com/ZPHGA...8883/?type=3&theater



Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association
Like This Page · 3 hrs ·

19th April, 2018
OFFICIAL ZPHGA STATEMENT ON SECOND COLLARED ELEPHANT
It is with deep regret that ZPHGA acknowledge the death of collared elephant of significance, which has recently shot by hunters in an area adjacent to Gonarezhou National Park.
Although the hunt was conducted totally legally, the Professional Hunter conducting the hunt was aware of collared elephant bulls in the region. Any ethical Professional Hunter should have first ensured 100% that such a large tusker was not in fact collared.
It must be noted that this particular Professional Hunter is not a current member of ZPHGA and unfortunately due to the (ECC) National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy not officially being implemented or enforced, there is no legal action that can be taken against this Professional Hunter concerned at this present time.
The client cannot in any way be responsible for any wrong doing, as he was only following the Professional Hunter’s instructions and had purchased a legal hunt, which was accompanied by a National Parks Ranger, who should also have verified that the bull was not collared.
It is now time for all wild life key role players to work together with Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife and the Zimbabwean Government to push forward swiftly the Ethic Code of Conduct policy to avoid such similar and unacceptable incidents.
At present National Parks is handling this case as the appropriate authority, pending further investigations.
In closing, we have previously warned our members to take heed of their actions and the consequences involved. They should be proactive in engaging with each other and the appropriate third parties, to avoid this unfortunate outcome in the future once again.
Yours sincerely
Mr. James Rosenfels
ZPHGA Chairman 2017/18
Email: zphgachairman@gmail.com