Forbes on-line mag has a pretty positive piece on the Trump hunt.

Forbes - Trump Hunt

The comments at the end started out pretty positive, but looks like the animal rights and anti hunting crowd have found it and zeroed in with their typical.."stuff".

read those comments, there are some real idiots in this world.

I wrote a response to Joe B. it is as follows:

Joe B:

You sir are the IGNORANT idiot. Have you ever been to Africa, more particularly Zimbabwe? I have, 17 times. The elephant population is in fact FAR IN EXCESS of the carry capacity of the land. Don’t believe me, ask the professional wildlife biologist that both study and advise on managing the elephants. Do a little Google research. Where did you get your information from? The Disney Channel?

Elephants are one of 2 animals (the other being human) that can and do destroy their environment. Elephants (over populated elephants) have in fact destroyed vast areas in Zimbabwe. I have personally seen the destruction on Hwange (a major national park). A starving elephant is not a pretty sight nor is one that has been severely injured by a snare. Both are common occurrences in Zimbabwe.

When an elephant is killed, ALL of the meat goes to the locals. it is a major source of protein for these people. There are no local grocery stores or restaurants. This is how they live.

Go to any non-hunting area in Zimbabwe. They are all the same. The locals have killed every living thing. They have cut every single trees. These areas are, in fact, barren waste lands incapable of supporting the humans that live there much less the wildlife. Then go to the Save Valley Conservancy where hunting is a management tool. There are vast numbers of animals. There are armed patrols searching out poachers, particularly rhino poachers. The difference is not much different than comparing the Sahara desert to the rain forest. I have seen the same thing all over Africa repeatedly.

A damming indictment of the US Constitution?

Why does my vote count the same as some of those who commented?

Nice to see a major player like Forbes reporting the truth and researching their material as opposed to the major media bomb throwers.
Not sure if most of the media realizes that by regurgitating the TMZ type stuff they have completely ruined their credibility.

An anti with a well written, although inaccurate comment which is then countered quite well by the author.


Dear Mr. Miniter,

I would like to reply to your article as one of the 73% of Americans that found the photos of the Trumps hunt in Zimbabwe to be barbaric. Yes I am one of the 73% of Americans that Don Jr and Eric Trump have been busy deleting and blocking from their Twitter and Facebook accounts over the past several weeks. I have however, tweeted on this subject with both Don Jr and Eric as well as Freddie Oosterhuis from Hunting Legends International, the SA company that orchestrated their hunt. I have spoken to conservationists and Park Managers in Zimbabwe on both sides of the argument as well as concerned people from over a half dozen countries. Here is some of what I believe I have learned.

Firstly, the idea that there was a need to thin the herd of elephants because of an overpopulation problem sounds like what a hunting operator would say, but it is not the truth. Although their habitat is being affected adversely by drought, killing more of them is only compounding the problems elephants face. Despite the small percentage of funds generated by trophy hunters and their claims of conservation, elephant numbers have been on a steady decline. In other words, elephants in Africa are in serious danger of joining the endangered species list in the very near future.

It is important that we not confuse Trophy Hunters with people who need to hunt for food as this is very misleading. It is estimated that the Trump boys dropped a cool 100K just for the pleasure of killing as many animals as they could and for the safari operator, the more they kill, the more profit they make. The Trumps didn’t eat the elephant or the leopard and all the meat from their hunt spoiled in little more than a day. Although a few villagers may have had one good meal, most of what they killed was wasted or sold by the operator to make even more profit. In other words, the idea that they made any kind of difference to the starving people of Africa is insulting.

It is equally important to separate a love for the outdoors with someone’s love of killing animals for sport as your article almost suggests that they are synonymous. The vast majority of Americans spend weeks in the great outdoors armed with nothing more than a camera and a pair of binoculars. Trophy hunting is about the thrill these people get from pulling the trigger and causing extreme pain to increasingly great “trophy” animals. If it weren’t, they just wouldn’t do it. Truely enjoying nature is something that I suggest they don’t get. If you want to understand trophy hunters ask yourself why someone would shoot a giraffe from a helicopter with a bow knowing the animal would suffer for days. If you look back at traditions, you will find that much of what trophy hunters did in decades past with their trophys would be called poaching today. Also many of the things people our past generations did are no longer legal for good reasons. Times change, the planet is changing and we as a people must also learn and change.

If the trump boys did what they did in Kenya, they might have been shot as poachers themselves by the KWS. Kenya has done a good job of promoting a more lucrative trade in eco tourism. Money from eco tourism there has paid for much more security forces that these animals desperately need. Tourists have unfortunately, been scared away from Zimbabwe because of corruption and the possibility that they may witness some of the world’s greatest animals shot before there very eyes as has in fact, happened in past.

Vitalis Chadenga, the man from the Wildlife Authority in Zimbabwe that signed a letter calling their hunt legit was himself arrested for illegal poaching in 2004. He is presently sitting on one of the largest stockpiles of elephant ivory on the planet and doesn’t seem to understand why the world won’t let him violate poaching laws and sell it. I am quite sure he did not launch an investigation of any kind into Trump’s hunt but other independent conservationists like Johnny Rodrigues Chairman Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force called the hunt unethical and is still investigating whether trumps illegaly used hounds to trap a leopard; a claim that the Trump boys have yet to deny specifically. Mr. Rodrigues also stated in a letter to me, that the government there has no real way of knowing the exact number of animals left so the hunting quotas are repeatedly set on bogus information.

Donald trump Jr and Eric Trump are public figures by choice and I am just one of thousands who had my image of them shattered. I don’t believe their trophy hunting is consistent with the Trump brand that they work so hard to project. I think their image has been damaged by all this despite articles like yours. TMZ did not shame them, they have shamed themselves. There is no danger of trophy hunting catching on as you say because the world simply will not tolerate it much longer. The Go Daddy CEO doesn’t talk about his hunting exploits of past because of the damage that it caused him.

Now Don Jr wants to raise the call to all hunters when most cannot afford to join his billionaire club of Big 5 trophy hunters. Next time you want to defend him, don’t go after TMZ, take on the 73% of Americans who think he crossed the line of human decency. Once they admit to that they will begin to restore their all important image.

Joe C

The author's response....

Frank Miniter, Contributor 6 hours ago
Hunting can be an emotional topic–for and against–so I always expect passionate responses when I write about it. What I would like to see is both sides–hunters and those against–come together as much as possible on what works for wildlife. I wrote a book on this topic (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting). I’ve spent time with wildlife biologists in Alaska’s coastal rain forests and in the Amazon jungle and, yes, in Africa as well as in many places in between. As I write this I’m preparing to go to Montana where I’ll spend a few days with a grizzly bear biologist. Each of these ecosystems is unique and the wildlife found in them is diverse and wonderful–believe it or not, hunters love seeing and watching game they don’t plan to shoot. But to truly help wildlife (and ourselves, as we’re a part of these ecosystems) we need to drop our emotions and be open minded about what really works. In this case, hunting, as National Geographic put it, is benefiting Africa’s wildlife. And yes, as you note, big-game hunting is illegal in Kenya. But compare Kenya’s lion, elephant and other current game populations to what it had before it banned hunting and you’ll understand why there is a real movement in Kenya to bring back legal hunting. Without hunting outfitters watching over rural wildlife populations (yes, in their own selfish self-interest) poaching increases and, as Kenyans have found, wildlife suffers.

I posted a comment on the article

Intersting that posters raise Kenya as an example.

In 1977 Kenya banned sport hunting, after pressure from international animal rights groups. Please google this topic- you will see that wildlife in Kenya, per the Kenya wildlife Service, has declined 60-70%, with the heaviest hits to elephant, lion and antelope.

Why? A great topic for freakonomics. Simply put, when there is sport hunting the government allocates vast tracts of land, where few people live, and allows a certain quota of animals to be hunted. The idea is hunting, but a limited amount which will sustain wildlife. Rules about ivory size, not shooting female leopards, not taking pride lions, etc. are strictly enforced.

The owner of the hunting block hires rangers and stops poaching of wildlife. A percentage of the hunting fees collected by the government go to locals, who now see that they are better off not poaching wildlife out of existence.

Local cattle herders do not expand their cattle herds and graze on these allocated blocks, which otherwise devastates the environment for native species.

When a hunter dos take an elephant, hippo or buffalo, the food is given to locals. An elephant can feed a lot of protein starved people.

Wildlife, thrives, people are fed, and foreign currency aids the local economy.

Google elephant population in Zimbabwe. In contrast to Kenya, when sport hunting became organized in Zimbabwe, elephant numbers have more than doubled, from 37,000 in 1989 to 85,000 in 2005.

Because sport hunting is a viable alternative to cattle ranching in South Africa and Namibia, game populations have quadrupled (google please), and the white rhino has come back from near extinction to sustainable populations.

People in their apartments and coffee houses don’t like to hear this, but hunting preserves and increases wildlife, in numbers and diversity.

One last bit- in a portion of the world where many people struggle for daily rations of water and mealy, it is fairly silly to advocate “government” action and “donations” to affect market forces, to “hire poaching patrols” and “teach locals to value wildlife for its own sake”. Only economic forces can manage this issue, as they are in areas that allow sport hunting.

quote:

Because sport hunting is a viable alternative to cattle ranching in South Africa and Namibia, game populations have quadrupled (google please), and the white rhino has come back from near extinction to sustainable populations.

One of the reasons I will continue to hunt on fenced properties in RSA.

US hunters owe Forbes a great big thankyou for writing this article. Hats off to the Trump Brothers providing well reasoned and supported responses about hunting and conservation. Lets e-mail this article to everyone we know and ask thme to forward along to everyone they know. Perhaps some light will shine where it normally doesn't.
This artile along with the CBS 60 Minutes story about the Scimpter Horn Ibex maybe the start of a positive trend.

Anyone who subscribes to Forbes would not be surprised by this story. It isn't the first time they have talked about hunting in a favorable manner. In fact, they have never written about hunting in a negative that I can recall.

And anyone who is an NRA member must recognize the name Frank Miniter.

quote:

Because sport hunting is a viable alternative to cattle ranching in South Africa and Namibia, game populations have quadrupled

A four thousand percent increase actually (in SA); from about 500,000 animals to over 20 million.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Because sport hunting is a viable alternative to cattle ranching in South Africa and Namibia, game populations have quadrupled (google please), and the white rhino has come back from near extinction to sustainable populations.

One of the reasons I will continue to hunt on fenced properties in RSA.

You all should go read some of the newer responses. It is absolutely amazing. One foaming at the mouth anti-hunter proposed culling people!

Culling people. It would have to be done under sound scientific principles. Perhaps limit it to tusk less without a dependant calf.

I wonder what Kenya would look like from a wildlife position if it's population today was the same as in 1920.

Actually I suspect nature will correct itself at some point, and I hope I'm long gone when it does.