http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...KawjNPwyo&refer=home

Looks like the government isn't going to be in the position of power they thought they were with diamond mines shutting down due to lack of demand.

Maybe they will realize having a diverse group of revenue centers is a better way to operate.

you are assuming that a black government has logic?? doesn't happen

but then again we have obama

Geoff

Actually the cutting back on hunting and increasing photo safaris is a scheme to make money. The photo safaris in Botswana can be very expensive, the photo season is way longer than the hunting season, and they are much cheaper to put on for the operator. The fact is that closing the Okavango to hunting may make a lot of money for Botswana. Now if they do this in other less scenic areas it could be a disaster. Where I have hunted there it was excellent for elephant but as a photo destination it would be ridiculous.

Mark

Mark, you are absolutely right. the photo camps in the Okavango are extremely expensive and they put 10-15 people in them at a time. bottom line is a photo concession over the course of a season will bring in more money than a hunting camp. if you have 10 people in camp paying $3-4000 a piece for a week, do you really think 1-2 hunters in a camp/week are going to spend as much on a weekly basis?

I don't think the either or argument holds water.

The delta is so large that you could have both hunters and photographers and still only have people in a tiny percentage of the delta.

Also, hunter many times go into areas photographers won't and will hunt areas with game in areas that are less picturesqe.

The delta is roughly 10% bigger then the entire state of Connecticut! It ain't full.

Lastly you can bet that photo safari bookings are in the toilet right now too!

You have quoted the revenue, but not the costs.

There has been good research demonstrating that the environmental costs of high volume tourism can be 24 times greater than obtaining the same revenue through hunting.

Guys,

I didn't pull this out of my butt nor do I personally like it. This is from safari operators in Botswana. I think you'll find that eliminating hunting in these areas has actually been given quite a bit of thought and the dollars favor the photo operators. I think this is less anti hunting and more dollar oriented.

Mark

butchloc: You wrote, "you are assuming that a black government has logic? doesn't happen"...followed by "but then again we have obama"

Could you explain to me here or privately, sabletp@aol.com what you meant by that? You and I need to talk please. 312 226 4047

Moja

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
you are assuming that a black government has logic?? doesn't happen

Ha, You've noticed. Just like the Ethiopian Game Department picking the lousiest time in
50 years to double/triple their license fees. If it ever starts making sense to me I'm going to commit hari kari

Rich Elliott

Two comments about this thread.

First, Botswana is not a “black government” (which is a ridiculously offensive and ignorant statement to begin with). If Obama can be called black than Ian Khama can be called white, his mother was a white English woman. And the elected PM from Ghanzi District South is also white. Botswana by its own definition and actions is a non racial democracy. They deserve a lot of credit for their fiscal and social policies.

However, they’re not perfect. The government by closing hunting by regulation is not closing hunting for obvious economic reasons. There are many concessions that allow hunting but hunting doesn’t happen there because the photographic operators outbid the hunting outfitters. The most economic solutions happen without government regulation. If the changes are motivated by economics, it’s because of the personal economics of those making the changes, not for the economic good of the country.

I'm confused.

I have wanted to hunt the Okovango sometime in the in the future (not soon) but thought it had become an impossibility because the government of Botswana had decided that they would rather have photo safaris than hunting.

The below is what I've heard as RUMOR... correct me if you can please.

The current president of Botswana is anti hunting.

The Government has decided to stop hunting as the concessions come up for renewal.

The Government shortened some concession leases to hurry the above.

The Government feels that photo safaris will produce more revenue overall than hunting.

The Government feels that photo safaris will have less impact on wildlife than hunting will.

The Government has a comprehensive wildlife utilization plan in place. (CITIES) This includes plans to cull animals if the local population is excessive.

The Okovango is a huge area, and is neither currently or at this point, planned to be completely utilized.

The anti hunting folks have decided that Botswana is going to be the new Kenya (ie they are pouring money in to the country and paying off politicians as needed as they did in Kenya.)

The local communities are not real happy about this situation.

We can expect wholesale poaching to start in a few years there as the local populace sees less personal advantage to keeping the animals utilizable.

We can only hope that the government changes/changes its mind about all of this.

Photo safari camps are really only viable in the Okovango, not in the rest of Botswana.

And now, I read here that hunting is not banned, but rather the photo safari folks are just outbidding the hunting concessions and while it can be said now we are losing the hunting, if the photo folks start failing to pay their tenders maybe it will restart?

I would love to hunt multiple species here someday, but on my personal ethical grounds I refuse to go to these big parks that ban hunting (that includes here in the US)- so I guess I will not get to visit this place.

quote:

Originally posted by P Durkin:
Two comments about this thread.

First, Botswana is not a “black government” (which is a ridiculously offensive and ignorant statement to begin with). If Obama can be called black than Ian Khama can be called white, his mother was a white English woman. And the elected PM from Ghanzi District South is also white. Botswana by its own definition and actions is a non racial democracy. They deserve a lot of credit for their fiscal and social policies.

However, they’re not perfect. The government by closing hunting by regulation is not closing hunting for obvious economic reasons. There are many concessions that allow hunting but hunting doesn’t happen there because the photographic operators outbid the hunting outfitters. The most economic solutions happen without government regulation. If the changes are motivated by economics, it’s because of the personal economics of those making the changes, not for the economic good of the country.

This is complete and total BS, either you know that already or you should. The government is pulling the plug on hunting and not renewing concessions.

Still confused? Well how about this one, there are a ton of other areas in Botswana that don't have a photographer for miles that could be used as hunting concessions part aren't. The delta is only one area of Botswana but concessions are being pulled everywhere.

The government is anti hunting, PERIOD.

crbutler

Ian Khama has made statements in the past that lead many to believe that he is antihunting.
The Okavango delta will be closed to hunting after this year, this per the outfitter that I have used in the past.
Hunting will not be closed in areas outside the delta.
An economic justification can be made for switching from hunting to photo safaris in the delta.

I would buy the photo safari income theory if it was a case of taking concessions from hunting safaris and giving them to photo safaris but then moving the hunters to other areas where there are no photo safaris. There is plenty of room for both if you wanted both.

While it is true about farms staying open for hunting I mean other national hunting concessions.

Any way you slice it, Diamond, hunting, and photography income are all dying in Botswana. They will change their tune quickly IMO.

/

quote:

Originally posted by SableTrail:
butchloc: You wrote, "you are assuming that a black government has logic? doesn't happen"...followed by "but then again we have obama"

Could you explain to me here or privately, sabletp@aol.com what you meant by that? You and I need to talk please. 312 226 4047

Moja

A few points:

Phototourism degrades habitat much more than hunting due to shear volume.

It's highly unlikely that all of the consessions in the Okavango will be filled with the demand. ie just because you build it doesn't mean they will come. Lesser areas could be easily used for hunting leaving plenty of space to meet the phototourism demand.

It's best to hedge your bets. Look at what happened to Kenya's tourist economy when they had unrest. The money dried up. Look at the mess in Zimbabwe and you can't keep hunters away. Diversification is important.

I understand the dollars from well run phototourism, but it just isn't adding up to a pure dollars and cents decision to me.

Brett

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuEc-nFULY8 Well said- watch this....

First to address GeoffM24’s statement “Still confused? Well how about this one, there are a ton of other areas in Botswana that don't have a photographer for miles that could be used as hunting concessions but aren't.” – First, can you name one of the areas you’re talking about? Much of Botswana is devoid of wildlife, except for a few kudu and steenbok and ostrich and definitely lacks the high value animals, either due to lack of water or the pressure from cattle. It is impossible to economically justify running a hunting operation on plains game alone in a concession; the government fees are too high to compete with game farms that own the game outright and don’t have to pay the government fees. However, I do agree that the government is anti-hunting

To address ALF’s comment on game management, while Botswana does have a management plan and they supposedly use scientific methods to decide on the number of animals to be on the quota, it isn’t always done with common sense. In CHA (Controlled Hunting Area – read concession) KD1 (Kgalagadi District 1) in 2005 had a quota of 75 steenbok, this is supposed to be a 10% off take of the population. KD1 is 13,000 sq. km, approximately the size of Connecticut. I drove for 100 km from the boundary to KD1 to Ukwi, one of the three villages in the entire area and counted about 50 steenbok. If we assume that I saw every steenbok within a km of the road (impossible but let’s assume) then the population density in KD1 can be assumed to 50/100 sq km or 0.5 steenbok per km. If you multiply that density by 13,000 km that gives you 6500 steenbok. So a 10% off-take should be 650 animals. AConservation Force reportbacks up my statement that the game populations are not well documented in the Kgalagadi District. The game populations are dwindling but hunting is not the cause or limiting it the solution. Cattle is king in Botswana and everybody there owns cattle or wants to. Few people directly benefit from hunting. The overall effect on the economy by the income of foreign capital is not understood by most local people. And much of the money that goes to the Trusts that manage the concessions unfortunately does not go to the community but to the individuals who run the Trust. So, politically hunting does not have strong backing. The Dept of National parks and Wildlife also does not seem to like CBNRM (Community based Natural Resource Management). They would much prefer to manage it themselves, and do, as illustrated in the fact that they set quotas with no regard to local input. The draft quota distributed for comment has never been changed before being set as the final quota as far as I know. The DNPW also “assists” local communities in their tendering of the concessions. I sat in on a meeting between the local trust in KD1 and the DWNP, and the total lack understanding of how a tender should be written and the economic realities of the value of the concession was mind boggling, and not just from the illiterate Bushmen and Bakgalagadi board members but the DWNP representatives. There was also an obvious air of aggression and disdain from the DWNP representatives who was junior officers who had little experience with wildlife or anything else.

As for ALFs comment “As to photographic safaris only being viable in the swamp..... methinks there are few serious photographers here because of the most photographed sites in Botswana are outside the swamp and game animals are definitely not the subject of choice”. Most people on photographic safaris are not serious photographers, just people who want to see Africa and take some pictures. I can tell you from experience, much of the incredible scenic beauty of Botswana’s landscape is totally beyond their comprehension. “I want to see a lion. Where are the elephants? What do you mean the chances are slim I’ll see a leopard?” That’s the attitude of most safari goers. And as for spending time meeting local Africans and experiencing their culture first hand, just read some of the comments within this post alone to see how enlighten many of the Americans who wish to go to Africa are.

/