Dear hunters

a year prior to safari hunting closure in zambia, due to pressures from safari operators ,hunting for citizens and residents was closed by the former tourism minister sylvia masebo. The excuse was rempant abuses by local hunters. Obvuiosly the local hunters took up the challenge and fought hard. At a lenghthy meeting with the minister, we accepted the abuses, but refused the blanket blame on whole fraternity of local hunters. In the same token we also enlightened the minister of the abuses by safari operators. This with later events led to cancellation of safari hunting.
Please what are the views of international hunters regarding hunting for citizens of the country. Why should forieghners enjoy our resources for the meagre returns to our economies , whilst citizens are denied.

Good point. Local hunters shouldn't be denied access to hunting in their own country. The locals should get their own quota based on the same sound scientific management principles that are used to determine quotas for safari companies.

I thought foreign hunters contribute quite a lot to the economies of the countries they hunt in.

Calling it "meager" is not right at all.

Would citizens of those countries be willing to pay the prices foreign hunters pay?

I know for a fact that in Tanzania, citizen hunters abuse their licenses to hunt in many ways.

They invite foreigners to hunt with them, illegally.

They shoot animals that are not on their license.

They shoot females and young, and I have never seen any report of the game department doing anything about it.

Going back to your question.

I have absolutely nothing against citizens hunting in their respective countries.

It is up to the game departments to ascertain that economically it is feasible.

It must be if what they are getting from foreign hunters is "meager".

I think there should be areas where locals can legally hunt.

I also dispute the "meager" concept. I pay a hell of a lot of money to hunt in African countries. There is no chance in hell that I am going and paying the kind of money I pay to have locals hunting there. None zero!

It may well be that a block fee or something like that is not that that large. However, this is not the only thing affecting the economy. There are jobs provided. Goods and services purchased.

Citizens should have the right to hunt their own country.

However, the international hunter places A LOT of money into the economy of their country.

Without international hunting, animals would be devalued and decrease in numbers. And yes, animals do have a monetary value; regardless of what people want to think. Without a higher value as a result of foreign hunters, 90% of these animals will be solely based on their "meat value".

I hope you can find a balance. You will benefit from foreign hunters!!

There not only should be a balance, but local hunters also must be a part of every country's wildlife management plan, even to a point where the scales are tipped to favor them over higher-paying foreigners if the demand exists.

When citizens of a country cannot hunt, it will not be long before they will not accept outsiders doing something they cannot.

As for the abuses (on both sides), that is a law enforcement problem. I know Africa is "different," but both sides need to demand an end to corruption and abuses.

Hunters worldwide should cultivate and promote the tradition of hunting wherever it exists if hunting is to be passed on to the children of our grandchildren.

Bill Quimby

Nicely said, Bill.

Regards, Tim

First of all pls understand I am a hunter and promote hunting.

Saeed, by calling the resources" meager " to the economy of the country, take the following into consideration.

1. Photographic safaries bring in 2.5 times the revenue of safari hunting. This for safari hunting in 2012 was approx only $3000 000 . This included concession fees , community pledges and animal fees. All safari hunting companys put together employ less people than photograhics.

2. The government can easily cancel all hunting, and prime areas given to photograhics without any appreciable loss to revenue. The rest of areas will be taken over for farming, deforestation, commercial poaching till it can last . These communities will earn far more than whats given by safari opearators.
From areas that I know personally , Mumbwa East, and namwalla GMA's are lost forever and Government has NO desire to reclaim them. Mumbwa West a super prime area , is being invaded as I write.

3. Until the present 2015 concession fees , $120 000 dollars on average/ per annum/concession. The highest ever bidded, in all these years. Previously approx 50 000, and community pledges again on average $20 000. Previosly even smaller. Now tell me if this is not meager . What can a whole community approx 100 000.. people do with $20 000 .To be fair local communities should benefit the most.

As for abuses;
In 2012 when local resident hunting was cancelled, there were 1300 applications for resident hunting. Only few of these get selected. Out of 1300 , 80% were applications by indegenous Zambians. We normally hunt for the meat.
Saeeds comments on abuses in Tanzania are exactly the abuses seen here. But these are are by a few. One cannot generalize these. Again these abuses can be counteredby working hand in hand with Zawa local Crb,s and scouts, Ph and safari compaies operating in the area, stringent rules and regulations and severe penalties for offenders.

Larry's comments that locals must get their own areas is not viable. Firstly zambia is vast and people who stay within confines of gmas and nearby, cannot travel to far flung areas. Secondly giving Depleated ares to residents wil continue to encourage poaching.

Zambia in NOWAYS makes the revenue as South africa in hunting. Please Larry note Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Mozambique are the only real free range hunting grounds. We may loose these coz of our greed.

Then, why doesn't Zambia adopt SA concept?
I understand, it maybe be complicated, but " MEAGER " is BS and you know it.
Even for us US hunters , African hunting is very very expensive proposition and because some government officials literally steal money that are supposed to go to local communities, it's in no way anyone's fault but government's.
Either African countries adopt seasons, restrictions and other hunting tools for managing game like US, Canada, Europe etc. or you are doomed without international hunting dollars.
Plain and simple.
Maybe Zambia needs to send few guys overseas and and get them educated in the ways of game management and then start educating people I Zambia slowly about the whole concept of game management.
It doesn't happen over night, but persistence pays off.
The concept " I want it all and I want it now " is 100 years in the past.
This is in no way some lecture and trying to patronize you or anything.
Just a thought.
So think about that, Late starter.

Well, any time one tells me that photographic safaris bring in more money, I know he is dreaming.

I have been in photographic camps in Kenya, and I have been in hunting camps in Tanzania.

A photo camps will have to be several times bigger to even approach equaling the money a hunting camp brings in.

Trophy fees, conservation fees, employment of game scouts for each hunting car, daily fees in the thousands of dollars.

Yeah, photos safaris cannot even dream of equaling what hunting brings in to the economy.

What I thought.
I wonder how many people flock to Zambia and other places on photo safaris and pay shit load of money?
That is a LSD dream if I ever had one.

Is that you Joloburn?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Is that you Joloburn?

No Jellybrain gave up on us.

She tried and tried to convert us, but she found that she was not getting any headway!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Is that you Joloburn?

No Jellybrain gave up on us.

She tried and tried to convert us, but she found that she was not getting any headway!

That's why I thought maybe she reconstituted with a new "handle". The 2.5 times $ from photo safaris vs hunting safaris is what clued me in to the possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Well, any time one tells me that photographic safaris bring in more money, I know he is dreaming.

I have been in photographic camps in Kenya, and I have been in hunting camps in Tanzania.

A photo camps will have to be several times bigger to even approach equaling the money a hunting camp brings in.

Trophy fees, conservation fees, employment of game scouts for each hunting car, daily fees in the thousands of dollars.

Yeah, photos safaris cannot even dream of equaling what hunting brings in to the economy.

I'd have to look for it, but a documentary showed a Photo Safari guide in Kenya. He had to travel to Tanzania and guide hunters to make money.

Jan Oelofse told me he consistently made more money from 50 hunters than from 5,000 tourists at his huge game farm in Namibia.

Owners of two farms that offer both hunting and photo safaris in South Africa have told me a similar ratio holds true at their farms.

I realize this limited survey is worth absolutely nothing and may or may not apply to Zambia, but it is interesting that as many as 100 tourists are needed to come close to what one hunter spends on those three farms.

It's sad to hear that Mumbwa East is lost. It's where I shot the lion shown on my avatar. I hunted there in 1994 and again in 1996, and it still had plenty of game although we did find signs of increased poaching on my second trip.

Today, a Google aerial view of our campsite shows thatched roofs all over the place.

Bill Quimby

Currently the Gov't of BC is slowly working towards jut this... They have negotiated behind closed doors with the BC Guide Outfitters Association and given the guides a substantially higher allocation than anywhere else in North America.... Some species such as sheep and grizzlies, the outfitters will get 40 % of the allocation.... Oh, by the way there has been very good contributions from the BCGOA to the Liberals financial coffers...

So it isn't just Africa...

If anyone is interested in finding out more, there is a certain website here on BC that has a lot of info on it... By the way, there is a very big rally planned for March 1 in Victoria BC to show the gov't that resident hunters are pissed...

I did not want to post the BC web site here as I did not get Saeed's approval and don't wanna step on toes or offend..

Chris

Oooops The rally is planned for March 2nd

Late Starter Interesting topic
in Zim being a local hunter for many years we have a similar issue if you want to call it that!
in a nut shell it boils down to MONEY MONEY
we do have a few areas left for auction which is open to all , and some operators very kindly offer us discounted trophy rates . other operators are not inerested in local hunters

Some statistics from SA.
shows local hunters do generate more than foreign hunters but could be different from country to country.

The following statistics about the South African hunting industry were released by Dr Herman Els:

10 years ago, there were less than
5 000 game farms in South Africa. In 2012 there were 12 000 game farms in South Africa
10 000 of these farms have hunting exemption.
20 million hectares of land is in private ownership representing about 70% of land use for wildlife conservation; the other 30% is government owned national and provincial game reserves.
The hunting industry has generated R7.7 Billion in 2011 - .25% of SA’s national GDP.
R3.1 Billion per year was generated from around 250 000 biltong hunters in South Africa. R2.1 Billion per year was generated from around 15 000 trophy hunters from abroad. The balance was generated from add-on services, food and accommodations.
Trophy hunting has a lesser impact on wildlife than biltong hunting.
Hunting is by far the largest revenue generator for game farmers. The sale of animals represents only around 5% of the revenue generated by game farmers.
Sixty per cent of all wildlife in South Africa is owned privately outside of national and provincial parks.
Game and hunting farmers are the largest contributors towards the conservation of wildlife.
Game farms create three times more employment than on a normal livestock farm. In recent years more than 70 000 jobs were created on newly established game farms.

Good day all,
I know late starter personally and he is a very well educated and respected person, who is very passionate about conservation and hunting.
Saeed my old friend let me try and clarify by the comment "meagre" the problem we are having is that not many of the safari companies actually bring in the money that they charge clients into the country.Very few companies have actually submitted audited accounts as per the law, enforcement is another issue here. So Zambia as a country and its people do not really see a tangible contribution.
The figures qouted by late starter are not fiction but verified and published figures.
Like in any group of people a few bad people are giving the resident hunters a bad name.
For the record late starter is just spearheading our cause as he can afford and has paid safari rates to hunt and really does not need to bother with fighting for us...this I know for a fact...

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
Jan Oelofse told me he consistently made more money from 50 hunters than from 5,000 tourists at his huge game farm in Namibia.

Owners of two farms that offer both hunting and photo safaris in South Africa have told me a similar ratio holds true at their farms.

I realize this limited survey is worth absolutely nothing and may or may not apply to Zambia, but it is interesting that as many as 100 tourists are needed to come close to what one hunter spends on those three farms.

It's sad to hear that Mumbwa East is lost. It's where I shot the lion shown on my avatar. I hunted there in 1994 and again in 1996, and it still had plenty of game although we did find signs of increased poaching on my second trip.

Today, a Google aerial view of our campsite shows thatched roofs all over the place.

Bill Quimby

Not only the financial impact but the environmental impact is much more devastating with a tourist operation. It is well documented that tourist camps leave a huge carbon foot print when compared to a hunting camp.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by zambian:
Good day all,
I know late starter personally and he is a very well educated and respected person, who is very passionate about conservation and hunting.
Saeed my old friend let me try and clarify by the comment "meagre" the problem we are having is that not many of the safari companies actually bring in the money that they charge clients into the country.Very few companies have actually submitted audited accounts as per the law, enforcement is another issue here. So Zambia as a country and its people do not really see a tangible contribution.
The figures qouted by late starter are not fiction but verified and published figures.
Like in any group of people a few bad people are giving the resident hunters a bad name.
For the record late starter is just spearheading our cause as he can afford and has paid safari rates to hunt and really does not need to bother with fighting for us...this I know for a fact...

Most safaris operators have their money sent to accounts not in Africa for very valid business reasons. The government cannot be relied upon to keep their hands off the foreign currency. Imagine a government nationalizing an account with all of the deposit money in it.

Ultimately, most, if not all of the money is brought back into Africa. After all, they have to pay wages locally. They must buy other good s and services locally. How do they do this if they don't bring the money back?

I think raising this issue in this manner is an attempt to make the situation appear worse than it is.

I have no idea about the audited financials.

Citizens of any country have the right to participate in any activity offered by their country.

But, there is an enormous difference between what a foreign hunter pays and what a citizen wishes to pay.

As mentioned above, citizens can hunt, provided they pay the same prices a visiting hunter does.

A visiting hunter must have some exclusivity to hunt an area to justify the amount of money paid for the hunt.

Now, if that money makes it down into the economy or not is of no concern to the visitor.

It is up to the government involved to sort that out.

And talking of corruption, in my experience government entities are the ones involved in this.

quote:

Trophy hunting has a lesser impact on wildlife than biltong hunting.

It is certainly possible that biltong hunters produce more revenue than trophy hunters, but if it were not for trophy hunters, the biltong hunters wouldn't have anything to hunt. A simple drive around much of South Africa with any knowledgeable person will show that ex-National Park areas, where there are no game farms, primarily set up for trophy hunting, there is almost ZERO game available. Why, you may ask? Simple, the natives kill them all to eat.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by zambian:
Good day all,
I know late starter personally and he is a very well educated and respected person, who is very passionate about conservation and hunting.
Saeed my old friend let me try and clarify by the comment "meagre" the problem we are having is that not many of the safari companies actually bring in the money that they charge clients into the country.Very few companies have actually submitted audited accounts as per the law, enforcement is another issue here. So Zambia as a country and its people do not really see a tangible contribution.
The figures qouted by late starter are not fiction but verified and published figures.
Like in any group of people a few bad people are giving the resident hunters a bad name.
For the record late starter is just spearheading our cause as he can afford and has paid safari rates to hunt and really does not need to bother with fighting for us...this I know for a fact...

Most safaris operators have their money sent to accounts not in Africa for very valid business reasons. The government cannot be relied upon to keep their hands off the foreign currency. Imagine a government nationalizing an account with all of the deposit money in it.

Ultimately, most, if not all of the money is brought back into Africa. After all, they have to pay wages locally. They must buy other good s and services locally. How do they do this if they don't bring the money back?

I think raising this issue in this manner is an attempt to make the situation appear worse than it is.

I have no idea about the audited financials.

One other reason is currency stability.

Jeff

As much as we love our hunting, and as much as we pay for our hunting, there is still no question that non-hunting tourists contribute far more the the economies of African countries than do hunters. That is simply because there are far more of them and they consume much more in the way of hotel rooms, restaurant meals, souvenirs, etc. (the last hunting trip I made I consumed exactly one hotel night, two restaurant meals, and zero souvenirs.)

But it is a great oversimplification (as Botswana is soon to find out) that you can have a successful tourist industry based on game animals without also having hunting for game animals. Witness: Kenya.

That's all a bit beside the point, however. The issue is home-grown hunters hunting in their own countries. We should welcome them to our ranks since they represent a pro-hunting constituency which can directly influence their own governments on matters important to all hunters.

Of course foreign hunters will and are expected to pay more. Just as with non-resident hunters in the U.S., you pay considerably more if you are from out-of-state. And regardless of whether the hunter is native or foreign, the game management principles should be the same.

I certainly welcome more folks hunting in general.

However, it should be done in a scientifically acceptable manner.

It also needs to be done in a financially reasonable manner.

As to the finances of the situation, when we talk in the developed world about locals having the first crack, the more logical argument is that they are paying all kinds of taxes already, and thus while their license fees, etc. are lower, they are already supporting the game animals and habitat out of proportion by other taxes. The out of state folks need to pay more to equalize this.

Of course this is not quite right as the locals are not really checked as to their contributions, and some out of state folks own land and are paying the taxes...

In reality, it is something that is more about politicians and votes. In Africa, it seems that they have said no hunting by locals, except that the political supporters of the local government folks poach and are then not punished for doing so because it's not politically expedient to do so. In the US, the locals get to have a disporportionate number and say in hunting because they elect the guys making the rules, whether it's wealthy landowners in the western states, and the lower middle class in the more populous states.

As far as Zambia goes, I suspect until more folks start paying taxes and want to hunt, the local hunters of average means will be out of the game as the politicians don't see them as a meaningful source of support, financial or electorally.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Citizens of any country have the right to participate in any activity offered by their country.

But, there is an enormous difference between what a foreign hunter pays and what a citizen wishes to pay.

As mentioned above, citizens can hunt, provided they pay the same prices a visiting hunter does.

A visiting hunter must have some exclusivity to hunt an area to justify the amount of money paid for the hunt.

Now, if that money makes it down into the economy or not is of no concern to the visitor.

It is up to the government involved to sort that out.

And talking of corruption, in my experience government entities are the ones involved in this.

At the end of the day, there are typically two pricing schedules by private landowners and many Concession operators. They all know that the locals typically don't have the bucks that foreign hunters do. So the locals get a break and many times a big one at that. If you're friendly with the landowner you can take a trophy animal and an animal for the landowner's table.

In regards to exclusivity, the locals probably stand a better chance of hitting the honey hole within the first hour. No need to drag things on and drive all around the honey hole in order to fill the timecard. See it, shoot it, go home. Pretty simple and that's why many landowners allow the locals to hunt. They make a few extra bucks and the freezer is restocked.

But there is little question that a hunting safari generates more revenue than a photographic safari. But, photo hunters don't mind sharing the camp and Cruzers with 5 other photo hunters. Trophy hunters, not so much. So you can run a whole bunch more photo takers through your camps and that translates to $$$.

The lobbying effort should be in support of public-only hunting areas, regulated hunting on public lands (National Parks etc), special provisions in hunting regulations, etc .... NOT ... lobbying against another sector of the hunting 'industry'. This industry includes the local recreational hunting sector.

When you lobby against another sector you will shoot yourself in the foot - guaranteed.

quote:

Originally posted by zambian:
Good day all,
I know late starter personally and he is a very well educated and respected person, who is very passionate about conservation and hunting.
Saeed my old friend let me try and clarify by the comment "meagre" the problem we are having is that not many of the safari companies actually bring in the money that they charge clients into the country.Very few companies have actually submitted audited accounts as per the law, enforcement is another issue here. So Zambia as a country and its people do not really see a tangible contribution.
The figures qouted by late starter are not fiction but verified and published figures.
Like in any group of people a few bad people are giving the resident hunters a bad name.
For the record late starter is just spearheading our cause as he can afford and has paid safari rates to hunt and really does not need to bother with fighting for us...this I know for a fact...

First I want to say Im all for resident hunting. And I wish we could all work together. Luckily Im not in a GMA.

I don't think that operators and resident hunters will ever be able to work together. The operator puts in a lot of hard work to protect the wildlife (some more than others) and sees nothing in return when a resident hunters kill animals he has spent time and money protecting. And the operator has no control over the resident hunters activities.

In my opinion even resident hunters should be accompanied by a PH and the operator should be paid a small fee to provide the PH. This would be ideal for everyone for many reasons. But I know most resident hunters don't want this for other reasons.

The other option which you mention is that certain areas could be allocated for residents only. But this is problematic because no one will be paying for the protection of the area and will deplete in no time.

Regarding the money that comes in from the GMA's/hunting I would like to know where these figures come from????

My rough calculations indicate that prime areas should have been invoicing between $500,000 and $800,000 each year total and secondary area between $300,000 and $500,000. Back when the shit hit the fan here there was about 20 areas operating fully.
To be conservative they should have been invoicing minimum $500,000 on average. Thats $10,000,000 at the minimum that should be coming into the country.

I know some of it is not coming in but it is more than $3,000,000 that does make it here. We can't only count the money that is paid to ZAWA and the community. Hunting helps the country in many indirect ways.

I wish every hunting company and ZAWA was audited every year by professional people. I know there is a lot nonsense going on.

This said, I have nothing good to say about how the GMA's are operated and tendered. Both buy ZAWA and the operators. None of it has anything to do with good long term conservation. IMO the current tender is going to fail. And it will look bad on the hunters and operator. I really want nothing to do with it. But the it will be better than nothing happening in the area.

I know photographic operators pay a lot of money to ZAWA. And they complain a lot about this. But it what reaches the ground in wildlife areas is very little.

The photographic operator often say that they could get much more out of the GMA's than the hunter. But this is a load of crap. The whole eco tourism sector is struggling big time at the moment. They just can't get enough clients. Competition is tough and western middle class (eco tourism target) don't have the money they used to have.

Now if the photographic operators are struggling in the National parks where game is plentiful how are they going to manage in the marginal GMA's where their clients will be disappointed because they though they were guarantied a lion and leopard sighting?

But please don't get me wrong. I want resident hunting. I think it is very important. And if ZAWA would give us a resident quota for some species that we have plenty of at a cheaper price I would happily sell it to residents only, cheaper than non-resident! But not for free though as I need to be paid to sit out here during rain season getting wet and monthly malaria

I will not react to some opinions voiced above since they donot relate to african situation on ground.

We in Zambia will never have the hunting industry like that of south africa. Game ranching is a difficult proposition. The poaching is so rife in these fenced ranches , the owners are at risk of being killed .One farmers bull eland was shot 200m from his house and then the poachers riddled his house with bullets. This has led to 4 of 5 game ranches closing in Mazabuka south of the country. The penalty for poaching is so minimal - it is no deterrant.

The revenue collection by ZAWA from photographic and safari hunting is what I quoted earlier. Not the whole spinoff to the economy. Like that photographic safari operators out number hunting operators. They employ more people, have more and permanent infrastructure, vehicles, and more net income .

The safari hunting operators who are paid abroad only bring that much as needed for expenses into the country. The nett income from most GMAs nears to 150 to 250 000 US dollars per annum. Yet most companies show they are operating in losses, hence the requirement by ZAWA to produce audited accounts. Even then few if at all produce these. No wonder many of older companies did not even clear the preliminary stages of the recent tender process for the GMAs

As to exclusivity to area for foreign hunters, - its almost there. The resident hunting only takes place in Sept, Oct, Nov,and Dec. Seept and October are very hot and Nov and Dec are in the rainy season. By sept allmost all safari companies have completed the hunts.

Matt Abrahams comment " When you lobby agaist another sector you will shoot yourself in the foot " - This is exactly what happened to safari hunting in Zambia

The concept that safari operators are putting lot of hard work and money in protecting their areas. I say BS. Yess those with private owned open and fenced game ranches, like Munyamadzi,Nyamvu and Fair games royal kafue area are shining examples of what conservation, patrols and good living practices with local communities can achieve. These ares were completely depleted few years ago, and now are better than many super prime areas. To safari operators I ask how many poachers they have phisically apprehended and helped to convict. Insignificant. How many wire snares have they collected and how many illigal guns have they helped to apprehend? The former minister of tourism asked operators to look after the areas they were in for a period of one year whilst the hunting ban was on. None volunteered coz they were not sure whether these areas will come back to them. These chaps just finnished 7 yrs in these ares and made anywhere from 150 - 200 000 US dollars per annum profit yet they could not give back 20 000 dollars for 10 scouts salaries for one year. Consevation is just louded , they are there to make money only.

As far as being CONSERVATIONISTS, look at the " Recent lion numbers in Luwangwa" a publication in this forum under Lion conservation.A comprehensive study by multiple teams over a five year period with physically naming every pride of lion and drawings, photographs of individuals , gps locations and collaring, all one year and above lions were counted and tracked , in south Luwangwa national park and 3 GMAs Mwanya, upper and lower Lupande.
On an average ONLY 95 lions per year in this vast area. 46 lions that dissapeared during the study corresponded to the exact same number 46 that were shot by safari hunters. Almost 5 lions per area per year. Officially only 2/3 lions were given in these ares, but using underhand methods extra quotas are obtained. So many other irregular activities have happenned, i donot want to dwell with here.

Resident hunters agreed to work with safari hunting operators, professional hunters association, wild life growers association to cooperate and work hand in hand to curb abuses from all sides. Also to help Zawa and Govt to formulate and strenghten the policy and laws of the country for the wild life sector. Unfortunatly we continue to have a lot of antogonism from these other hunting bodies.

Sounds like you need first of all jobs infrastructure where people can make good living and paying taxes and they don't have to hunt to survive
Without that, every African country is screwed and we see it in about every country that doesn't have hunting industry ( read Paying )
Besides corrupt gov officials.
You are making some sense, but you are also naive and hopeless dreamer that wants to take on easiest target which is hunting industry
Maybe you oughta work with hunting industry otherwise you're pissing into a wind

I have to add this for Thors attention
One of our proposals to zawa to curb abuses was to eventually have a ph for every local resident hunter.To achieve this the safari hunters and their ph have to take at least 2 indegenious apprentices under their wings and hopefully every 3 yrs well have 40 -50 new phs. Unfortunetly we only have approx 5 local indegenious phs for all these yrs of safari hunting in Zambia. It was a closed shop, the phs , a clique that would not want to endanger their livelihood, and deliberately frustrated local trainy phs. Also the ph exams conducted by same clique further made sure the locals find it extremely difficult to go thru.

Mr. Late Starter needs to realize that one does not normally choose the path of being a PH because it is a job like any other; it is more like a vocation, i.e. its in the blood.

The so-called "clique" referred to were subjected to the same examinations - you fail, you go home, regardless who you are.

By and large, local resident hunters do not fall into the category of those who hunt with a passion. Most (I say most but not all) resident hunters are after the meat and quite frankly don't give a damn what skin the animal wears; meat is meat and if it comes from a Sable, Kudu, Hartebeest or Buffalo, on license or not, who cares!

Does one therefore really need to have a PH guiding a bunch of butchers?

What I sense from his postings are sour grapes and a nagging weight on one shoulder.

fujotupu, sorry mate , ifyouve followed the topic from biggining you would have realized that were looking for a win win situation for resident and safari hunting. The phs for resident hunters are to prevent abuses by this group.

quote:

Originally posted by late starter:
I have to add this for Thors attention
One of our proposals to zawa to curb abuses was to eventually have a ph for every local resident hunter.To achieve this the safari hunters and their ph have to take at least 2 indegenious apprentices under their wings and hopefully every 3 yrs well have 40 -50 new phs. Unfortunetly we only have approx 5 local indegenious phs for all these yrs of safari hunting in Zambia. It was a closed shop, the phs , a clique that would not want to endanger their livelihood, and deliberately frustrated local trainy phs. Also the ph exams conducted by same clique further made sure the locals find it extremely difficult to go thru.

That's all very well in theory but if you look at other African countries that have tried to being more black Africans into PHing, you'll see that it's never been particularly successful because not many are willing or able to do the job and nor do many have the cultural background to do the job anyway.

I appreciate that statement appears to be rather sweeping and I'll be the first to admit that there are some very fine black African PHs out there but in all honestly, there ain't many.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by late starter:
I have to add this for Thors attention
One of our proposals to zawa to curb abuses was to eventually have a ph for every local resident hunter.To achieve this the safari hunters and their ph have to take at least 2 indegenious apprentices under their wings and hopefully every 3 yrs well have 40 -50 new phs. Unfortunetly we only have approx 5 local indegenious phs for all these yrs of safari hunting in Zambia. It was a closed shop, the phs , a clique that would not want to endanger their livelihood, and deliberately frustrated local trainy phs. Also the ph exams conducted by same clique further made sure the locals find it extremely difficult to go thru.

That's all very well in theory but if you look at other African countries that have tried to being more black Africans into PHing, you'll see that it's never been particularly successful because not many are willing or able to do the job and nor do many have the cultural background to do the job anyway.

I appreciate that statement appears to be rather sweeping and I'll be the first to admit that there are some very fine black African PHs out there but in all honestly, there ain't many.

Which basically reinforces what fujotupu has said.