TAHOA's letter does not address the chopper rumor simply because the questions that AG asked TAHOA to respond to, did not include the rumors about a chopper being used by the hunters.

Good point, Bwana. Couple of points. Once these elephants left Amboseli, they aren't Amboseli elephants. And, elephants are elephants wherever they wander. They are not "gentle giants". My understanding is that one of these bulls was crop raiding and aggressive when approached. That doesn't sound like an habituated animal. Finally, hunting of these old bulls is the answer. It provides the funds for anti-poaching and conservation. It does no harm to elephants as a whole. Finally, does anyone truly believe that a poacher would pass on one of these bulls, because they were "Amboseli bulls?" Should legitimate hunters have to leave the "big ones" to the poachers?

Elephants are smart. They know where humans are "friendly" and where they are not.... so an ele approached in a park will appear "habituated" and docile while the same ele in the neighboring village farms will act totally different and appear nervous, alert and easily provoked into aggressive display.

Bwanamich,

You said it much better than I did.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Good point, Bwana. Couple of points. Once these elephants left Amboseli, they aren't Amboseli elephants. And, elephants are elephants wherever they wander. They are not "gentle giants". My understanding is that one of these bulls was crop raiding and aggressive when approached. That doesn't sound like an habituated animal. Finally, hunting of these old bulls is the answer. It provides the funds for anti-poaching and conservation. It does no harm to elephants as a whole. Finally, does anyone truly believe that a poacher would pass on one of these bulls, because they were "Amboseli bulls?" Should legitimate hunters have to leave the "big ones" to the poachers?

If you want to make the case that these bulls should be hunted, there should be a lot more money raised than what is done currently, with a trophy fee of $20,000. I see the Arizona Special Pronghorn tag went for $90,000 (https://bid.wildsheepfoundation.org/ARIZONA-GAME-FISH-COMMISSIONER-S-SPECIAL-PRONGHORN-TAG_i51252321). Seems like we could get a bit more for a 100lber....

quote:

Originally posted by StormsGSP:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Good point, Bwana. Couple of points. Once these elephants left Amboseli, they aren't Amboseli elephants. And, elephants are elephants wherever they wander. They are not "gentle giants". My understanding is that one of these bulls was crop raiding and aggressive when approached. That doesn't sound like an habituated animal. Finally, hunting of these old bulls is the answer. It provides the funds for anti-poaching and conservation. It does no harm to elephants as a whole. Finally, does anyone truly believe that a poacher would pass on one of these bulls, because they were "Amboseli bulls?" Should legitimate hunters have to leave the "big ones" to the poachers?

If you want to make the case that these bulls should be hunted, there should be a lot more money raised than what is done currently, with a trophy fee of $20,000. I see the Arizona Special Pronghorn tag went for $90,000 (https://bid.wildsheepfoundation.org/ARIZONA-GAME-FISH-COMMISSIONER-S-SPECIAL-PRONGHORN-TAG_i51252321). Seems like we could get a bit more for a 100lber....

You are right…BUT…this area wasn’t hunted like some Zim area (for this kind of price) nor is the trophy fee relative to total cost.
These guys are charging well over 100k currently in Northern Tanzania for Elephant ($130k+ in day rates from what I saw at SCI)
You are still certainly correct…only argument above that is cost
One huge direct fallacy in this ( which no offense you propagated unintentionally) is the trophy fee fallacy…
The government gets a hell of a lot more than that due to high lease costs and other costs
The Antis extrapolate only the trophy fee cost (as did you) at best when talking about value

StormsGSP,

As stated, the cost a 21 day in Tanz is well over $100k with trophy fees especially and the trophy fees are usually graduated on ele based on weight, so they are already doing that. If you start assigning a special trophy fee to a particular animal, that's just wrong IMHO. Kind of like what is happening with rhino now in some other countries. That's not hunting, it's shopping.

I am very much aware of the pricing structure, and what the government gets from individual hunts and in block fees. My opinion is that 1) the government doesn't get enough for these very big bulls, and 2) too many of these big bulls are getting taken.

quote:

Originally posted by StormsGSP:
I am very much aware of the pricing structure, and what the government gets from individual hunts and in block fees. My opinion is that 1) the government doesn't get enough for these very big bulls, and 2) too many of these big bulls are getting taken.

Only aware of these 2 "Amboseli Bulls" taken in the past 30 years in TZ. Believe it or not Kenya has done a stellar job protecting elephant, especially in Amboseli and Tsavo, and as a result seeing more big bulls. Black rhino just hit 1000 in Kenya as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Safari2:

quote:

Originally posted by StormsGSP:
I am very much aware of the pricing structure, and what the government gets from individual hunts and in block fees. My opinion is that 1) the government doesn't get enough for these very big bulls, and 2) too many of these big bulls are getting taken.

Only aware of these 2 "Amboseli Bulls" taken in the past 30 years in TZ. Believe it or not Kenya has done a stellar job protecting elephant, especially in Amboseli and Tsavo, and as a result seeing more big bulls. Black rhino just hit 1000 in Kenya as well.

Two of the orgs in that area are very effective at what they do - which also means they bring a lot of attention to those bulls. I have a hard time being critical of good people wanting to protect and continue to build reservoirs of elephant and black rhino.

Has anyone seen pics of the bulls that were killed? I find it odd they haven’t been circulated if they were so well known.

The Mantheakis response was poor indeed considering the vast amount of concessions recently closed as they are depleted and no longer economically viable

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
The Mantheakis response was poor indeed considering the vast amount of concessions recently closed as they are depleted and no longer economically viable

Which concessions would you be referring to?

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
The Mantheakis response was poor indeed considering the vast amount of concessions recently closed as they are depleted and no longer economically viable

Which concessions would you be referring to?

I was thinking the same thing Fulvio. I can tell you it is NOT any of the areas of concern...Longido, Endumet...???

Lets see the list Andrew.

Painful lessons I have learned over the last five years. Setting aside arguments that the hunts resulting in the taking of these two large tuskers may have been legal, supported by sound conservation theory, consistent with sustainable use of resources, etc., if hunters continue to take super tuskers that wander out of popular tourist parks like Amboseli and Tsavo (or Kruger, Mana Pools, et al.), hunters will be the ultimate losers. I understand the conservation theory, sustainable offtake theory, the concept of “if it pays it stays”, etc., but in a world of sound bites and social media and with trophy hunting under attack not just by antihunters but other hunters, make no mistake, hunters will be the ultimate losers. While that may sound defeatist, it is the pragmatic reality. In the end, it may be as Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Painful lessons I have learned over the last five years. Setting aside arguments that the hunts resulting in the taking of these two large tuskers may have been legal, supported by sound conservation theory, consistent with sustainable use of resources, etc., if hunters continue to take super tuskers that wander out of popular tourist parks like Amboseli and Tsavo (or Kruger, Mana Pools, et al.), hunters will be the ultimate losers. I understand the conservation theory, sustainable offtake theory, the concept of “if it pays it stays”, etc., but in a world of sound bites and social media and with trophy hunting under attack not just by antihunters but other hunters, make no mistake, hunters will be the ultimate losers. While that may sound defeatist, it is the pragmatic reality. In the end, it may be as Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us.

This should not be a controversial perspective.

I thought Michel Mantheakis' response was perfectly appropriate and well-stated.

And yes, in many cases, the enemy is us, as evidenced in this post. The taking of an old bull, which a 100 pounder necessarily is, does no harm to elephants as a whole. The animal is beyond breeding and living out its last years. If not hunted and shot, it will starve to death when its last set of molars wear down. When it leaves a protected area and goes into a hunting area, there is nothing wrong with taking it. When it begins crop raiding, it is necessary. Better by a trophy hunter than a poacher or game scout as a problem animal.

I was in Longido in 2017. Shortly after I left to go to a different area, a young girl was killed by an elephant. It likely wandered in from Kenya, I have no idea if it was a bull or a cow or its size. But, these are not "gentle giants" and if we just give in to the antis and say if you don't want us to hunt them we won't, we all lose.

As for me, I plan on hunting elephant in Masailand in 2026. Already booked for 2025 or I'd do it next year.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Painful lessons I have learned over the last five years. Setting aside arguments that the hunts resulting in the taking of these two large tuskers may have been legal, supported by sound conservation theory, consistent with sustainable use of resources, etc., if hunters continue to take super tuskers that wander out of popular tourist parks like Amboseli and Tsavo (or Kruger, Mana Pools, et al.), hunters will be the ultimate losers. I understand the conservation theory, sustainable offtake theory, the concept of “if it pays it stays”, etc., but in a world of sound bites and social media and with trophy hunting under attack not just by antihunters but other hunters, make no mistake, hunters will be the ultimate losers. While that may sound defeatist, it is the pragmatic reality. In the end, it may be as Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us.

Exactly. Right now, I don't think the photographic tourism industry is especially against hunting in TZ. That will change if this continues. Then you will have half a million tourists a year hearing about how bad hunting is from their photographic operators. It may be misguided and shortsighted, but there will be no one there to present the other side.

That's wrongheaded and fighting a retreating battle
that you'll never win.

I'll be hunting for a big tusker in TZ this year.

quote:

Originally posted by bwanajay:
I'll be hunting for a big tusker in TZ this year.

Masailand or Kinyangesi?

We the hunters became afraid of our own shadows
We keep retreating thinking antis will go away…not
Personally I will not retreat except the fact, I don’t post pics on any social media

Don't expect a 100 pounder, the average is around 50=55. But that's a nice bull.

The southern Kenyan borders are no different to any others in Africa where elephant and other species become "fair game" once they wander out of their safe havens.

In some areas, fences that had been erected to keep elephants in get trampled so they can get out ... and in most cases get shot without too much fanfare from the peanut gallery.

Just seeing a third 'Amboseli' bull has been killed - outfitter and hunter named.

quote:

Originally posted by StormsGSP:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Painful lessons I have learned over the last five years. Setting aside arguments that the hunts resulting in the taking of these two large tuskers may have been legal, supported by sound conservation theory, consistent with sustainable use of resources, etc., if hunters continue to take super tuskers that wander out of popular tourist parks like Amboseli and Tsavo (or Kruger, Mana Pools, et al.), hunters will be the ultimate losers. I understand the conservation theory, sustainable offtake theory, the concept of “if it pays it stays”, etc., but in a world of sound bites and social media and with trophy hunting under attack not just by antihunters but other hunters, make no mistake, hunters will be the ultimate losers. While that may sound defeatist, it is the pragmatic reality. In the end, it may be as Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us.

Exactly. Right now, I don't think the photographic tourism industry is especially against hunting in TZ. That will change if this continues. Then you will have half a million tourists a year hearing about how bad hunting is from their photographic operators. It may be misguided and shortsighted, but there will be no one there to present the other side.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by bwanajay:
I'll be hunting for a big tusker in TZ this year.

Wish you all the best

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Just seeing a third 'Amboseli' bull has been killed - outfitter and hunter named.

. . . the board member? Surely not. Hopefully not.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Painful lessons I have learned over the last five years. Setting aside arguments that the hunts resulting in the taking of these two large tuskers may have been legal, supported by sound conservation theory, consistent with sustainable use of resources, etc., if hunters continue to take super tuskers that wander out of popular tourist parks like Amboseli and Tsavo (or Kruger, Mana Pools, et al.), hunters will be the ultimate losers. I understand the conservation theory, sustainable offtake theory, the concept of “if it pays it stays”, etc., but in a world of sound bites and social media and with trophy hunting under attack not just by antihunters but other hunters, make no mistake, hunters will be the ultimate losers. While that may sound defeatist, it is the pragmatic reality. In the end, it may be as Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us.

You are dead on Mike!

BACKGROUND: We approached Michel Mantheakis – chairman of the Tanzanian Hunting Operators Association (TAHOA) – before publishing our report on the recent trophy hunting of two super tuskers in Tanzania. We requested that he provide specific information and context so that our report would be accurate and contextual. He acknowledged our request and undertook to respond but failed to reply thereafter. Other experts were happy to reply to our questions. Once our report went live, Mantheakis compiled this letter, which he circulated widely. We requested evidence of his claims in this letter, and he undertook to provide those but failed again to do so. Our CEO, Simon Espley, responds.

Dear Mr Mantheakis

I am responding with reluctance after advice and requests from several corners, including members of the trophy hunting industry who seem embarrassed by your actions. I fact-check your claims below, but first, this:

You were recommended to us by a highly regarded member of the Tanzanian conservation industry as the ideal person to help us understand the facts behind the trophy hunts referred to above. And so, during our research, we emailed you in good faith in your capacity as chairman of TAHOA. We hoped that you would provide the required input and help us maintain our 32-year tradition of accurate reporting on these sensitive matters.

Our request to you was for the specifics related to these hunts. Yet, your public response after our report was a generic ideological sermon, complete with misinformation, unsubstantiated claims and cheap shots aimed at Africa Geographic.

Our report provided verified facts about the two hunts alongside necessary context and input from respected conservation experts. You were given the opportunity to be part of that equation, but you chose to abstain. Instead, you chose to deflect from the topic and inject anger and bitterness. Surely you can see that your approach is not conducive to much-needed constructive engagement and problem-solving? We remain open to constructive dialogue if you decide to provide facts specific to these hunts.


Important context:
Judging by your letter, you do not represent the broader hunting industry. There are examples of trophy hunting industry operators in open ecosystems who play significant roles in ecosystem and biodiversity conservation. There are also numerous examples of hunting in private reserves and fenced farms, which provide conservation benefits. Timbavati Private Nature Reserve (mentioned by you) is a good example. The sector of hunting that you ostensibly represent surgically removes certain FREE-ROAMING animals with sought-after traits and seems bereft of scientific rigour and moral compass. This distinction we make between the various aspects of the broader hunting industry is essential if we are to weed out harmful practices.

Your letter suggests that you hold the key to wildlife conservation outside of national parks - that others, such as NGOs, scientists, researchers and the photographic tourism industry – are de facto irrelevant. Your choice of words is exclusive, not inclusive, and the arrogance of your claims beggars belief.

Our journey is different. We believe in transparency, accountability and constructive dialogue amongst all parties to find practical science-based solutions to today's reality – burgeoning human populations and massive threats to biodiversity and ecosystems. That’s why we requested your input into these specific hunts. If you require further information about our methodology, refer to our manifesto.


Now, to correct the misinformation in your letter:
1. Your words:

“The Tanzania Tourist Hunting industry is 130 years old, and it has been well-regulated throughout its existence. It is recognized as the only viable form of land use in game reserves and areas with wildlife outside the National Parks and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area.”

“Hunting concessions currently comprise of 260,677 sq km which is 29% of Tanzania’s surface area, hence a much larger area than the 113,621 sq km that National Parks cover which is only 12% of Tanzania’s surface area.”

“I am proud to say that most hunting companies in Tanzania operate their own anti-poaching programs in cooperation with the TAWA at a huge annual cost, to safeguard all the natural resources and wildlife within their hunting concessions to safeguard their business interests.”

FACT CHECK:

You have only presented one side of the coin – the shiny side. Your industry abandoned 110 out of 154 Tanzanian hunting zones in which you had exclusive use – because they were no longer profitable for trophy hunting. That’s 140,000 km² of land – that could’ve benefitted conservation – lost. This land was utilised by the trophy hunting industry you hold in such high esteem – and then abandoned once depleted. This abandoned land no longer contains trophy animals and is being reduced to rack and ruin – playing host to poaching, mining, logging and other harmful activities. That you proudly trumpet the land still being hunted as an example of “viability” and a “well-regulated” industry and ignore the elephant in the room speaks volumes. This pro-hunting article highlights the reality facing the trophy hunting industry in Tanzania. And yet you claim that all is well in your industry ...

2. Your words:

“… anti-hunting publications like Africa Geographic. You are not transparent or a balanced media and have a reputation for always twisting the truth to fit your anti-hunting narratives, that only benefits your business interests.”

FACT CHECK:

We emphasise factual accuracy and science, which we acknowledge inconveniences those with an ideological approach. Please educate yourself by visiting our website and typing in the word ‘hunting’ in the search bar. Amongst others, you will find the following interesting articles that help provide information and context behind the hunting industry - telling both sides of the story:

Why rural communities choose wildlife hunting over cattle
Trophy hunting ban could harm conservation on private fenced farms in South Africa – says study
Trophy hunting: rural communities respond
Opinion: Pro hunter responds to our CEO regarding hunting in Greater Kruger
Trophy hunting in the context of community conservation
Opinion: Trophy hunting in the Greater Kruger versus broader conservation priorities
3. Your words:

“ You… will not even comment positively on any of the anti-poaching efforts that are funded largely by hunting revenue in the same reserves and to the benefit of the photo tourism camps you promote, who also operate in the Timbavati.”

FACT CHECKS:

A. Your information about Timbavati is incorrect. As recently confirmed to me by a member of their Exco, their considerable anti-poaching efforts are now predominantly funded by photographic tourism, with trophy hunting playing an ever-reducing role.

B. Regarding your claim about my Timbavati writings, I refer you to my opinion editorial in response to misinformation in South African news media about trophy hunting in Timbavati. In this article, I make a strong call for fact-based reporting to replace headline baiting and misinformation.

4. Your words:

“Your anti-hunting activism is causing the loss of thousands of square kilometres per year of wildlife habitat in Tanzania and the illegal slaughter of more wildlife annually than ever taken by hunting.”

FACT CHECK:

As proven above, the Tanzanian trophy hunting industry has been shedding concessions due to overhunting and poor management. That you blame us and a coterie of organisations for this says enough about you and those you represent. If shining a light into dark corners in search of transparency and accountability translates as “anti-hunting” then you have a rocky road ahead. Blaming others will not win any battles against the many threats faced by the wildlife industries – habitat loss, poaching, human-wildlife conflict, and climate change, to name a few. The free-roaming resource is a fraction of what it was, and attitudes are changing. Human populations have expanded at significant environmental cost, and the planet can no longer afford the unfettered removal of diminishing populations of free-roaming animals with specific sought-after genetic traits. You behave like nothing has changed since the 1900s, which is foolish and unsustainable in the modern context. Perhaps you should consider handing over the reins to others who better understand the modern conservation landscape.

5. Your words:

“In Tanzania the CITES quota is only 50 elephant per year out of a population of over 60,0000, that is a very minimal quota of only 0.08% of a stable and growing population”

AND YET:

Our article covered the hunting of two super tuskers and expressed concern about the future of the remaining tiny population of super tuskers – estimated by elephant researchers at 50–100 across Africa. Your topic switch to Tanzania’s entire elephant population is a classic avoidance strategy. This blanket refusal to discuss details while continuing to broadcast misleading generic soundbites again speaks volumes about your strategy to avoid transparency and accountability.

6. Your words:

“2 legally hunted very old and past breeding bull elephant, taken last year, that brought great financial benefit to both the Government and local communities.”

AND YET:

We requested information from you about these two bulls and specifics about the benefits for local communities – to help explain the context to our audience. You did not provide that information. Transparency should lie at the core of any sustainable industry. The information vacuum you left has again been filled by rampant speculation on social media. That’s on you – don’t blame us or others for the consequences of your actions. If you were more transparent and accountable, the discussions would be more relevant and productive, and there would be less fodder for peddlers of misinformation.

7. Your words:

“240 Tanzanians were killed by Elephant. Anybody who finds this irrelevant is unconscionable and has no moral authority to criticize Tanzania’s National conservation policy and efforts.”

AND YET:

This is a rather basic attempt at bait-and-switch. These two hunts we reported on had nothing to do with human-wildlife conflict, and the hunts were not to remove ‘problem animals’. On this occasion, our article does not address the terrible burden imposed on some of Africa’s rural people by dangerous animals. We cover this matter extensively on our website – here is an example: Life with Elephants. Please do not cheapen this important matter by attaching your flag to the human rights cause. The trophy hunting industry is hardly the poster child for human rights or skills uplifting and empowering Africa’s rural villagers.

8. Your words:

“You seem to think there is sinister wrongdoing in disposing of Elephant carcass by burning or burying it; however, in this part of Tanzania it is actually a very responsible conservation act to prevent pastoral people from poisoning the carcass, which if you had done your research, is commonly practiced in order to kill Lion, Leopard and Hyena that frequently prey on their livestock.”

AND YET:

We asked you to provide important contextual information about the burning of carcasses. Again, you did not. We were advised by several professional hunters – one associated with TAHOA – that this is a highly uncommon practice.

9. Your words:

“The anti-hunting community intentionally refuses to distinguish between Conservation-Based Hunting, which is a selective, sustainable and a legal tool of conservation, and poaching, which is an illegal and devastating criminal act.”

HERE'S THE THING:

Claiming to be “sustainable” does not make it so, no matter how loud you shout. What about the current situation makes you think what you do is sustainable? Trophy hunting is an extraction industry (like mining and hardwood logging), and any claim of sustainability has to be proven based on data. Show me accurate historic population stats of Tanzania’s target species (including large-tusked elephants as a genetic focus) compared to annual offtakes of each. If your industry were genuinely sustainable, you would not avoid providing these facts and the other details we request.

In my considered opinion, if an activity further reduces the population of a species or genetic trait already in decline, then that activity is, by definition, not sustainable. Claiming that other factors contributing to population declines are 'worse' illustrates a lack of conservation thinking. That you insist on this ongoing veil of secrecy suggests that you are aware that your activities are not sustainable and hope to continue for as long as you can get away with it. In that way, I believe you do not represent the best interests of the broader hunting industry.


FINALLY
You speak of "working together" and us being "conservation partners". We approached you in the spirit of that august goal. Yet you ignored our request for information that would have provided further accuracy and context. Instead, you chose to sully our name with a toxic mix of misinformation and condescending generalisations that have little relevance to Africa Geographic or the topic at hand – and which you refuse to back up with relevant evidence. That is not how partners behave. Your actions were cowardly and invidious – certainly not exemplary behaviour from the chairman of a respected trophy-hunting organisation.

I can’t help wondering what happened to that core trophy-hunting principle of FAIR CHASE. To recall the words of Cynthia Moss: “Shooting an Amboseli bull is about as sporting as shooting your neighbour’s poodle”. Is this what your sector of trophy hunting has been reduced to?

alt text

Simon Espley - CEO, Africa Geographic

For the sake of transparency, this was our emailed request to you, sent on 29 December 2023 and acknowledged by you on 2 January 2024 (two points redacted as these are still under investigation):


block.images[0].filename

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Just seeing a third 'Amboseli' bull has been killed - outfitter and hunter named.

2024?

quote:

Originally posted by Safari2:

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Just seeing a third 'Amboseli' bull has been killed - outfitter and hunter named.

2024?

Yes. March 1

Andrew,

I'm not sure why you even posted the Espley letter unless it was to show how unreasonable these folks are. I can't begin to respond tit for tat to all these ridiculous accusations, because I'm not involved in the industry other than booking hunts.

But a number of problems with Mr. Espley's accusations are immediately obvious.

From a 30,000 foot level, he mixes and matches and points to issues in other countries to support his arguments. Africa is a big continent and you can't look at the continent as a whole. He's wrong on all counts, but comparing South Africa to Botswana to Tanzania is a fools errand.

He ignores the great anti-poaching efforts of all legitimate outfitters in Tanzania, at great expense.

He criticizes Tanzanian outfitters because some concessions were not sold. That's a criticism of the Tanzanian auction system, and should be directed at the government.

He ignores biology. A 100 pound bull is old as dirt. He's on his last set of molars and will soon starve to death. He's not out chasing the ladies or mentoring younger bulls. He's pretty much done. His death is inevitable and death from a sport hunter is likely the most humane for him. His death does not affect the elephant population as a whole. While elephants are affectionate to each other, it is a matriarchal society and they could care less about mature bulls. These bulls are beyond breeding and it has no impact whatsoever.

Once these bulls cross a border, they are fair game and they change once out of the sanctuary of a national park.

If he was really interested in the benefit of elephants, he would advocate for conservation hunting pouring money into the communities and anti-poaching.

He obviously does not care about the African people as in his view, they are clearly not as important as an over the hill bull elephant.

You really can't have a constructive discussion with these people.

Andrew posted it because it is directly relevant to the topic at hand. Anti-hunters will always be anti-hunters, but we are deluding ourselves if we don't realize that hunts like this are a platform/soapbox for the ardent anti-hunters to get more converts.

DSC, SCI, APHA, etc. need to seriously look at hiring a proper PR firm to handle how we deal with scenarios like this, and more generally how we engage the wider public. I don't disagree that there are flaws with the AG letter, but we have to clearly, calmly and professionally counter these in consistent written and visual (i.e. short videos) communication pieces. I think we need to match that PR work with not shooting ourselves in the foot/undermining ourselves with hunts like this, but obviously there are others here who feel differently.

I don't think you can say anything to these idiots that will make them see sense. But i really do feel that there should be more outreach to non hunters to educate them. We are great at preaching to the choir.

I will give you a simple example if you google "hunting in botswana", you will read 101 articles of why hunting is bad for botswana. Not a single article written from our side. This needs to change.

quote:

Originally posted by StormsGSP:
Andrew posted it because it is directly relevant to the topic at hand. Anti-hunters will always be anti-hunters, but we are deluding ourselves if we don't realize that hunts like this are a platform/soapbox for the ardent anti-hunters to get more converts.

DSC, SCI, APHA, etc. need to seriously look at hiring a proper PR firm to handle how we deal with scenarios like this, and more generally how we engage the wider public. I don't disagree that there are flaws with the AG letter, but we have to clearly, calmly and professionally counter these in consistent written and visual (i.e. short videos) communication pieces. I think we need to match that PR work with not shooting ourselves in the foot/undermining ourselves with hunts like this, but obviously there are others here who feel differently.

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:
I don't think you can say anything to these idiots that will make them see sense. But i really do feel that there should be more outreach to non hunters to educate them. We are great at preaching to the choir.

I will give you a simple example if you google "hunting in botswana", you will read 101 articles of why hunting is bad for botswana. Not a single article written from our side. This needs to change.

quote:

Originally posted by StormsGSP:
Andrew posted it because it is directly relevant to the topic at hand. Anti-hunters will always be anti-hunters, but we are deluding ourselves if we don't realize that hunts like this are a platform/soapbox for the ardent anti-hunters to get more converts.

DSC, SCI, APHA, etc. need to seriously look at hiring a proper PR firm to handle how we deal with scenarios like this, and more generally how we engage the wider public. I don't disagree that there are flaws with the AG letter, but we have to clearly, calmly and professionally counter these in consistent written and visual (i.e. short videos) communication pieces. I think we need to match that PR work with not shooting ourselves in the foot/undermining ourselves with hunts like this, but obviously there are others here who feel differently.

there is almost nothing you can say to change people's mind from anti- to pro- elephant hunting. the very best you could ever expect is ambivalence. and that will only happen when there is a net positive to the animals, people, and landscape. Otherwise you are pissing up a rope.

We often tell the hunt story first, then the trickle-down effects of the contributions.

An effective story would be to spend a year with an outfitter/PH - on season, off season, anti-poaching, dealing with local politics people and economies. telling the story of 365 days in an area, not just a 10 day hunt and BANG. that's a much harder but more compelling story. a feature-length film like that, ACCURATELY told, WOULD get traction.

Sorry, no amount of PR however well done is going to convince John or Jane Q. Public that hunting the last remaining super tuskers (whether that number is estimated to be less than 200 or 2000) where they wander out of popular national parks is appropriate. To the contrary, such events just undermine the ability to mount credible arguments in other areas.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sorry, no amount of PR however well done is going to convince John or Jane Q. Public that hunting the last remaining super tuskers (whether that number is estimated to be less than 200 or 2000) where they wander out of popular national parks is appropriate. To the contrary, such events just undermine the ability to mount credible arguments in other areas.

Mike -

Fully agree. Even guys in my circle of friends that only hunt domestically shake their heads at "just" Elephant hunting, much less targeting the last remaining Super-Tuskers.

I too feel we should protect them as true icons of the continent and its riches. All need to enjoy, not just a few in someones trophy room.

Yes, they will all eventually parish, some maybe even poached. There is no perfect solution.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sorry, no amount of PR however well done is going to convince John or Jane Q. Public that hunting the last remaining super tuskers (whether that number is estimated to be less than 200 or 2000) where they wander out of popular national parks is appropriate. To the contrary, such events just undermine the ability to mount credible arguments in other areas.

Mike -

Fully agree. Even guys in my circle of friends that only hunt domestically shake their heads at "just" Elephant hunting, much less targeting the last remaining Super-Tuskers.

I too feel we should protect them as true icons of the continent and its riches. All need to enjoy, not just a few in someones trophy room.

Yes, they will all eventually parish, some maybe even poached. There is no perfect solution.

Correct. Let me clarify my statement above had nothing to do with these Amboseli bulls or the like. They are truly special (like Ahmed) and should be regarded as such.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sorry, no amount of PR however well done is going to convince John or Jane Q. Public that hunting the last remaining super tuskers (whether that number is estimated to be less than 200 or 2000) where they wander out of popular national parks is appropriate. To the contrary, such events just undermine the ability to mount credible arguments in other areas.

Mike -

Fully agree. Even guys in my circle of friends that only hunt domestically shake their heads at "just" Elephant hunting, much less targeting the last remaining Super-Tuskers.

I too feel we should protect them as true icons of the continent and its riches. All need to enjoy, not just a few in someones trophy room.

Yes, they will all eventually parish, some maybe even poached. There is no perfect solution.

I disagree Steve. The elephant population in these "core areas" (Amboseli, Tsavo, Taringire and Serengeti) have greatly increased in the past 20 years. These populations were spared from the bad poaching from say 09' thru 14'.

Tsavo is on the verge of being back to 20,000 elephants after being poached down to 6000 or so in the 80's. Taringire is at capacity as well as Amboseli.

The late Cotton Gordon had the areas around Serengeti (Grumeti and Loliondo) in the early 90's and never once did I see an elephant harvested in those days. Mike Fell now harvests 4-5 bulls per year in Maswa (Serengeti) now.

I agree we need to be careful with the harvests in these areas, but if the protections in these areas remain as they are I dont see a problem with harvesting a few bulls.