a decent article that once again shows the complexity of the relationship between Africa and her wildlife.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...livelihood.html?_r=0

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
a decent article that once again shows the complexity of the relationship between Africa and her wildlife.

I disagree that there is anything "complex" about it... Great article, BTW.

quote:

in the countries where trophy hunting had worked well — Botswana, until the ban; Namibia; and Zimbabwe, until its economy collapsed in the past decade — it had accomplished the twin goals of generating income and protecting wild animals.

“When hunting was introduced, we actually ended up killing less animals,” Dr. Child said. “That’s the irony.”

With hunting now banned, there are growing signs that more wild animals could be killed, experts say.

The complexity of the average person having to hold two seemingly dichotomous thoughts in their heads about the survival of wildlife- that being to hunt them also means to help preserve them. It is indeed a complex problem if only to try to convince people (outside of the hunting community) that the hunter-conservationist method of wildlife management is a viable solution.

Its not complex at all, just common sense.

Thanks for posting

Very good article. Hopefully it will show up on the DSC and SCI Facebook pages. We have a good story to tell . . . we just need to step up and tell it.

My son and I hunted NG34, based out of Sankuyo, in 2013. The community was granted 23 elephant tags in the final year. I've never seen such a concentration of free-ranging wildlife like that before, including 2 daytime leopard sightings and lions roaring at night. The hunting model was working very well. It's sickening to think about what's transpiring now.

Great well written article. Too bad it won't get the air time that killing a lion with a name did.

These are the kind of messages that SCI should be relentlessly pushing 24-7, 365.

I wonder if the New York Times sells life time memberships? The least I can do or will do is buy some of their Newspapers whenever I can.

An excellent well researched article from the NY Times. That is the difference between the internet and real reporting. Kudos to the NY Times for taking time and doing research on the issue.

I hope groups like SCI and DCS take notice, take some of their money and fly over there and make a video about the issue and interview people from that village. Post it on facebook, you tube and email the link to every member they have.

The story carries a whole lot more weight when it is being told by those who are affected the most by it.

That is great and well put together.

It might get the attention of some in the middle ground.

But thinking that you will change these anti- minds with true and accurate facts and correct presentations is quite a stretch. They merely draw on emotion and what they despise. They hear only what they want and they falsely make up and add to that - then believe what they want. They don't want a well reasoned approach. They only want to tell you what when and how and what not to do.

So, being a westerner, I am confused.

I am so used to hearing anti-hunting rhetoric from big city back easterners, that this article begs the question: why would the NY Times write a pro-hunting story?

Is the sky falling?

Because at its core it is a human interest story. How does a village supported by a waning and controversial industry prosper?? As I said, it's complicated. Regardless of whether people think it is or not.

This quote is brilliant!

--------------------
“In Africa, a human being is more important than an animal. I don’t know about the Western world,” she added, echoing a complaint in affected parts of Africa that the West seemed more concerned with the welfare of a lion in Zimbabwe than of Africans themselves.
--------------------

quote:

I hope groups like SCI and DCS take notice, take some of their money and fly over there and make a video about the issue and interview people from that village. Post it on facebook, you tube and email the link to every member they have.

The story carries a whole lot more weight when it is being told by those who are affected the most by it.

+1


Wouldn't it be great if SCI had a handful of articles like this or the latest Jim Shockey Uncharted show (Man-eating Croc)to start passing out to the media when the next Cecil moment takes place.

Or wouldn't it be better if they distributed an article like this to the media every month or two as a matter of standard practice.

Instead they run and hide from the media at the hint of trouble and brag that SCI was only mentioned in 1/2 of one percent of the media mentions regarding the Cecil event.

A big "Shout Out" to the NY Times for being "First for Hunters".

For sure a good article!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
For sure a good article!

X2. I just read it in the Times & glad to see it was posted here.

BTW : DON'T fly DELTA or

American Airlines& Air Canada
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...-hunting-to-go-away/

Amazing grace hits the ignorant masses. They once were lost, but now they're found, were blind, but now they see. Hallelujah!

The reason that the Times ran this article is the fact that there are still a lot of people working there who take that Newspaper of Record stuff very seriously.

One great thing about this article is the fact that it can now be cited by other people. "As reported in the NY Times" has a certain gravitas that , "As reported by pro-hunting organization SCI" I'm afraid does not. We now need follow up after follow up to extend this message wider.

Let us not kid ourseves....the true cost of conserving "wild and unfenced" ecosystems in Africa is far higher than what consumptive or non-consumptive can generate together!

What our consumptive model does in most instances is provide the best land use at the moment.....which is better than the alternative. Ultimately, without serious donor funding being made available to conserve Africas protected areas, they will continue to see wildlife populations in varying degrees of decline.

Getting both sectors to pull together and securing the political will of African Governments to agree to partner with donor countries in managing their wildlife resources is a complex stumbling block in todays' efforts.

Resource Africa has just hosted a workshop in JHB with major stakeholders in the SADC private sector ( including John Jackson , Zim , Bots , WRSA, ZAmbia and Malawi , Airlines and Cargo freighters , USAID, CHASA, PHASA, to name a few ) with an objective of drafting a Johannesburg Declaration , one of the major points was the Formation of a coalition for Conservation which would respond to negative publicity and generate new publicity for hunting. The concept is for every one bad story there are at least 10 good ones to share. Anothe issue was to liaise with the Predator Breeders as the meeting wanted to return to the definitions of Fair Chase and ethical hunting definitions. The workshop is a two step platform to COP 16 . The workshop was also presented with Wildlife Ranching's publication on the pro trade for Rhino horn , much of it is in the latest WR magazine - a must read as all the arguments are looked at in detail including the anti trade.
The point came out that good people like Stuart Dorrington has been hosting NYT at his ranch and having open transparent discussions. This is part of a much greater campaign of informing the middle ground people and media about the truth. Much good is coming out of the (bad) publicity of ,whats that lions name again ?, as media are having to speak to the industry whereas in the past they would not. It is therfore realy important to respond to each and every mistruth spread on the internet with a true story and the facts. There are so many facts out there now , we can respond to the negative information with positive information without getting into arguments - simply state the truth.

We hunted there in 2012. We were there near the end. Poaching was already ramping up. We heard shot multiple times . The BDF was called in. Their hands were tied. We also had vehicles driving around near the camp at night shooting.

I can only imagine how it escalated when the hunters were gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
Let us not kid ourseves....the true cost of conserving "wild and unfenced" ecosystems in Africa is far higher than what consumptive or non-consumptive can generate together!

What our consumptive model does in most instances is provide the best land use at the moment.....which is better than the alternative. Ultimately, without serious donor funding being made available to conserve Africas protected areas, they will continue to see wildlife populations in varying degrees of decline.

Getting both sectors to pull together and securing the political will of African Governments to agree to partner with donor countries in managing their wildlife resources is a complex stumbling block in todays' efforts.

Agreed! In the long run, as in North America, wildlife will be segregated to places where it is protected (national parks, conservancies, etc) and those will have to be financially strong enough to resist population-expansion pressures. It's easier in much of North America because we have large tracts of land that few people want to live on or develop for agriculture. Less and less of sub-Saharan Africa is like that each year. For now, revenues from hunting are providing the counter-balancing force to keep people (mostly) out of places where African wildlife can live, but as population grows and pressure builds to open such areas up to mining and other extractive economic activity, we the hunters will not be able to pay enough to keep people and development out of those areas. NGO's will have to join hands with us to make it financially feasible for poor countries to not kill off their wildlife, especially large and dangerous wildlife like elephant, big cats, buffalo, etc.