quote:

Its a messy situation indeed. Many outfitters do not pay too much attention about the quota and just try to maximize - this especially true of those that sub-lease.

So then it is quite possible, at least in Tanzania, that a concession could be "shot out."

Not literally speaking. There will always be game in those concessions as well BUT not in the numbers of other neighbouring concessions sharing the same ecosystem - and more skittish.

Don't forget that to someone a concession may appear "shot-out" and to the next not at all; just a "tough" concession. The statement "shot-out" is relative

Thanks, Bwanamich, I used 'shot out' as it is a favorite on these forums. So a better term is a tough concession.

In your opinion, which Tanzania concessions would place in the 'tough' catagory and which would you say are consistantly golden?

quote:

In your opinion, which Tanzania concessions would place in the 'tough' catagory and which would you say are consistantly golden?

Now THERE'S a loaded question

Anyone who has hunted a DG Communal Concession in Zimbabwe knows that poaching can take a huge effect on the game numbers.

One guy with a handfull of snares can account for an operators entire Warthog quota over the year. And we all know, there ain't just one guy with a handfull of snares in some of these areas. I would imagine their "take" of some of the plainsgame species could be 10 times greater than that of the operators. Just a guess, maybe more, maybe less in some areas.

If the guy has a muzzleloader, throw in the Elephant and Buffalo as well.

Seems to me that most of the guys in Zim will take the majority of their quota of Buffalo and Elephant. They will likely have a Lion or Leopard left over ... sometimes not.

It seems to me that the Tanzania guys are more conservative with taking their entire quota than those of any other country. I base this on the operators I know in Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Namibia and Mozambique. I am sure someone can find a specific instance where I am wrong ....

The thought that "suitcase ph's" (SPH) will overshoot a concession in Tanzania, is not a valid one. For the suitcase PH, or subleaseor, to take any animal, it has to made available to him by the operator. If the SPH is overshooting, it is because the operatore allowed him to.

Yes, I am sure there are guys in Tanz who will try to sell their entire quota to make the most money.

The quota of animals in a "typical" Tanzania concession are very similar to those of a Zimbabwe concession. (sometimes a bit more, but lets face it, these concessions usually have more game!)

Keeping in mind that game management and quota is subjective, how can you conclude that an area can be shot out when these guys do not usually take the % of quota as their Zim brothers?

The hunter, going by the quota allocation system, is not likely to be able to put enough pressure on a specie, or an area, to make a definite noticible difference. The poacher, in a years time, can.

I will agree that an operator can put too much pressure on a particular specie if their quota is too high and the population is too low.

I think in the end, "Shot Out" probably really means "Poached out". This seems to be way more common and much more likely than "shot out".

Bwanamich and Wendell- Thank you. Do either of you know if records are kept on this and if so are they availible? And Bwanamich- are you familiar with the "points" system in leiu of shooting quota?Thanks again.

.

To me, "shot-out" usually implies that there is a disproportionaly low amount of mature animals in a population. In other words, if you are seeing lots of females and young males, but very few mature (breeding age - not trophy quality necessarily) animals, the hunting pressure may be too high.

Conversely, if you are seeing little game at all, its most likely not to do with sport hunting...maybe drought, poachers, predation, carrying capacity (habitat quality).

Canuck

Alf,

You have misquoted me. You put in bold a statement that I did not put in bold. The words may be the same, but, it changes the meaning when the emphesis is on the wrong part of the statement. I said:

It is not likely to be able to put enough pressure on a specie, or an area, to make a definite noticible difference. The poacher, in a years time, can."

I also said:

"I will agree that an operator can put too much pressure on a particular specie if their quota is too high and the population is too low. "

These may seem to be contradicting statements, but there is a difference between "definite noticible difference [in a years time]" and and "pressure on a specie."

The example was used to demonstrate how poaching can take a larger impact in a years time than regulated trophy hunting. Even a regulated take based on an over-generous quota system that may not accurately represent a healthy take.

Which is the base for your argument. Our stance is not that different.

The main point of my post is to point out that concessions that people think are "shot out" may actually be, "poached out." A more likely scenario.

But as we all know, there are exceptions to every rule. It would not be difficult to find a specific example to prove me wrong.

I do not dispute your info, I was shedding some light on the issue of a concession with poor game numbers, one deemed to be "shot out".

Now, do you think that as an average, my thoughts on this are off base?

Sometimes the quota for a species is more than the concession can support, so it is possible to have a shot out concession with no poaching going on.

Also, some concessions are seasonal, and it is possible to schedule a hunt during a period of time when the concession is empty.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Sometimes the quota for a species is more than the concession can support, so it is possible to have a shot out concession with no poaching going on.

Maybe we need to define "shot out". In my mind, when I hear "Shot out" I picture an area with no trophy quality animals of any specie.

I am not saying it is not possible, I just think your next statement probably is the cause for some thinking an area is shot out.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Also, some concessions are seasonal, and it is possible to schedule a hunt during a period of time when the concession is empty.

This is the more likely explination for an area that someone thinks is shot out. I have been in concessions that were sick with game ... like a zoo. I have heard people, who went to the same concession, less than a year later, tell me they are "shot out". This is just not possible in less than a years time.

Shot out is subjective, if the only place you ever hunted was a Communal Land area on Lake Kariba in Zim, and then went to a marginal, or slightly game poor concession in Tanzania, you might think you landed in heaven!

The reverse is true as well. If you hunted a great Masailand concession in December, with tons of game, and then went to the most game rich Communal Land in Zimbabwe, you might think you were thrown into hell.

Let me clarify my stance.

1. I believe it is possible to overshoot quota of certain animals in a concession. I know of specific quota on animals in areas that I disagree with.
2. I think poaching can easily take a larger effect on game numbers than an overzealous quota.
3. I agree that too much hunting pressure can also drive game from an area. This may be one of the causes of a concession being called "shot out". Maybe this is the more likely explination? I do not know.

The problem is we are trying to address a simple question with a simple answer when there are complex forces are at work.

I do not disagree with any of the statements posted by Alf or 500 grains. I may just take a different view and try a different explination. Probably, my experience is different than theirs, so I form a different opinion.

In one respect, some of the points of disagreement result in the same effect: some areas that had been productive may not be so productive next year, or perhaps the year after. It could be because of hard weather, or poaching, or overhunting due to misalignment of quotas and the amount of hunting that can be tolerated from season to season, and these can impact some species more than others. There are all sorts of complications to the question.

But the answer to Ann's question is simple: yes. A hunter's investment can be at stake. The PH, concession owner, trip arranger may loose the value of their trusted name. I would suspect that might be the point of Ann's question, given the web-site she lists by.

Dan

Wendell, not to be argumentative, but let's consider elephant hunting in the Zambezi valley. In the mid 1980's guys were getting 50-70 pounders regularly. Today they get 30-35 pounders regularly, a 50 pounder is a fluke, and a 70+ pounder is an act of God. The reason, based on the information several people in the know have given to me, is that the quota for trophy bull elephant has been too high for too long.

.

From the individual's standpoint, if the hunt is for buffalo, and if the trophy quality when the hunt was booked was 44" and when the hunt is conducted it is 38", there is a diffinite difference even if animals are there. If there are no animals with hard bosses, there is a difference. This is true even if there are impala, bushbuck, and other species.

However, hunting (or poaching) pressure is only one reason for lack of success. Weather conditions are having a noticeable impact at this time. This is an important issue in Africa where everything is about water. Kudude

This might be some stupid info but from experience on South African game farms if suddenly you find an active leopard or cheetah and even hyena on tne property the game will be much more scittish than normal.

You have good areas all over but one area could have much sweeter grass than the concession you are one what then ??

Why would it be different with a big concession when a pride of lions would walk into the area. Hunting after all is to hope to get a chance on taking the game in the right situation not waiting for it to appear around the corner. !