Shakari hit on the head, MJines hit it on the head and some of the other comments as well.
It's a mess and a big one.
Total clusttrofuck.
Africa at it's best.
Yes, first of all, no more foreign aid even from China, but will never happen.
Ultimately, I don't have the faintest idea what can be done first

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I thought that Tanzania said that the hunting companies HAD to vacate the concession in the off season? Remove the camp, etc.?

They are allowed to maintain whatever necessary to run anti-poaching year around.

quote:

If TGT can do it, why not others?

Do a little research on TGT then review your question.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I thought that Tanzania said that the hunting companies HAD to vacate the concession in the off season? Remove the camp, etc.?

They are allowed to maintain whatever necessary to run anti-poaching year around.

In certain areas of the Selous, I don't think it is possible to remain all year round.

The rivers make movement impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

If TGT can do it, why not others?

Do a little research on TGT then review your question.

Fujo,
What are you getting at? TGTS is owned by a prosperous family...no doubt. But a family that tries leave things better than they found it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

If TGT can do it, why not others?

Do a little research on TGT then review your question.

Fujo,
What are you getting at? TGTS is owned by a prosperous family...no doubt. But a family that tries leave things better than they found it.

Which is fantastic, and it would be great if more companies did exactly what TGT did. TGT is the perfect example of the great things that hunters can do. However, most of the operators here are trying to earn a living, and can't afford to spend anywhere near TGT's budget on Anti-Poaching. Does that mean they should spend nothing? Of course not. But with only a 5 year guaranteed concession lease, most companies won't sink a lot into the land. As someone mentioned, even TGT lost some of their blocks. It would be a quite the kick in the gut to sink millions into a concession over 5 years, turn it into a top block, and then lose it to someone else with better connections.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

If TGT can do it, why not others?

Do a little research on TGT then review your question.

Fujo,
What are you getting at? TGTS is owned by a prosperous family...no doubt. But a family that tries leave things better than they found it.

Precisely Lane; TGT is what one might call a "Private Reserve" and the available cash flow is from a bottomless pit!

TGT most certainly does not have to rely on hunting clients to fund its operation nor anti-poaching ventures, in fact TGT alone could fund the entire anti-poaching program for the whole of Tanzania!

One should therefore not try to compare other outfitters to TGT and the other "Chappie" next door.

A considerable amount has just been donated by WB - I wonder how well it will be "administered".

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

If TGT can do it, why not others?

Do a little research on TGT then review your question.

Fujo,
What are you getting at? TGTS is owned by a prosperous family...no doubt. But a family that tries leave things better than they found it.

Precisely Lane; TGT is what one might call a "Private Reserve" and the available cash flow is from a bottomless pit!

TGT most certainly does not have to rely on hunting clients to fund its operation nor anti-poaching ventures, in fact TGT alone could fund the entire anti-poaching program for the whole of Tanzania!

One should therefore not try to compare other outfitters to TGT and the other "Chappie" next door.

A considerable amount has just been donated by WB - I wonder how well it will be "administered".

Fujo,
I know the TGTS situation well...they are friends of mine. While I am not sure they could fund the entire TZ antipoaching operation...they do try to do a good job with theirs and lead by example.

That said...they don't give their hunts away either...they try to make the company make as much money from hunting as it can...with OUT harming the wildlife and wild land.

Thus...while you might not be able to compare everyone to TGTS as apples-to-apples...they should still try to follow their example...as it is a good one.

As as I eluded to above...and Storms says in his post...the companies should do there best at protecting their blocks and budget anti-poaching in prior to buying the rights to a block. If its economically un-feasable to do both and companies are unwilling to take the blocks with out affording protection for them...then the laws of economics will lower their prices. But as long as companies are willing to just take them and squeeze every last dime out of them with out taking care of them...we will continue to have the crisis we are in now.

Hey Buzz & Myles, yawl must have some of the dumbest poachers in Southern Africa. Despite a Zim government that fails to adequately fund anti-poaching initiatives, yawl seem to be doing just fine with your hunter funded DAPU. Apparently, all of the smart and wise poachers are prying their trade in Tanzania (see above postings).

Earlier excerpt from AR posting:

"Thanks for the nice comments Gentlemen. Donations through CF as well as privately enabled DAPU to work through the off season which has proved very effective as we have now done 3 elephant hunts which equals alot of mileage covered and we have not found a single ele carcass so far!

With the donations we have also employed Siraaj Gardner who is a very enthusiastic youngster to over see the running of DAPU and he has had an immediate positive effect. Alot of time so far this season has been getting many of our 28 scouts into the fields chasing crop raiding elephant out the fields at night. What this means is that this year we have not had to shoot a single PAC elephant which was our objective- in the old days National Parks/ Council would approved on average 7 ele bulls through out the Dande to be shot as PAC a year.

We have also this season collected 100 snares shot 2 dogs and confiscated 2 duggaouts with nets fishing illegally. Siraaj and one stick are sitting on an ambush as I type this as Rich Tabor who is hunting now ( just shot a 50lbs) found a dead impala in a snare so we hope for a positive out come on that. We are up dating our DAPU section on the website quarterly so you can follow the success of DAPU there. You can also see our budget and if , as a contributor, want a breakdown of costs etc we will happily supply!!!"

Cheers and best of luck my friends!

quote:

As as I eluded to above...and Storms says in his post...the companies should do there best at protecting their blocks and budget anti-poaching in prior to buying the rights to a block. If its economically un-feasable to do both and companies are unwilling to take the blocks with out affording protection for them...then the laws of economics will lower their prices. But as long as companies are willing to just take them and squeeze every last dime out of them with out taking care of them...we will continue to have the crisis we are in now.

Lane:

Don't jump to conclusions in interpreting me wrongly as I am NOT criticizing TGT but merely pointing out that financing is their least of worries.

TGT does not have to rely on clients to keep their show on the road either - let's just say that whatever they make is a minor contribution towards an infinitesimal part of the costs.

Yet in spite of all the means at their disposal they still lose elephant and rhino from under their noses!

What makes you or Storm think that other outfitters do not have active anti-poaching projects on the ground? Admittedly not many (if any) will have aircraft and/or choppers at their disposition (like TGT)but they do have teams and vehicles deployed. Worthy of note that most patrols are conducted on foot and ambushes are laid on the main access/exit routes with considerable though short-lived success as the elimination of one lot will only bring in another.

You will appreciate that not all outfitters have the financial means to conduct anti-poaching patrols like their neighbour; some can afford to have several or more units while others can only afford a single group. Some can conduct patrols throughout the year while others do so only when they are in the field (6 months - now extended to 9).

However so, when you consider the army has been called in, this should be an indication that the situation has now blown itself out of proportion and no amount of "private" anti-poaching sorties is going to put a dent in these illicit operations.

The "shittiest" gun one would likely find on the trail would be the Chinese SKS followed by the ever popular AK-47 to more modern bolt action rifles with or without scopes.

We are talking serious poaching; snares for impala and other lesser game, pits and nets are for the beginners!

Hi Fujo,
I was not in insinuating that you were criticizing them. Apologies if it came across that way.

I am just tired of hearing from others that TGTS is a bottomless pit. They too need for things to be profitable.

I know others work hard on anti-poaching as well and they too deserve their due.

That said...there are those who could/should...that don't.

quote:

I am just tired of hearing from others that TGTS is a bottomless pit. They too need for things to be profitable.

I know others work hard on anti-poaching as well and they too deserve their due.

That said...there are those who could/should...that don't.

Lane:

You might well be bored at hearing that the finances available to TGT are regurgitated from a bottomless pit but its a fact.

Money to the Friedkins is the least of their worries and if their "venture" can make a few bob, so much the better, but no one will shed a tear or file for bankruptcy if it doesn't.

It also has to be accepted that not everyone can afford to conduct anti-poaching operations in a grandiose style. The larger, more successful and well established companies are obviously in a better financial position than for example the newbies who barely have 2 pennies to rub together and were at the time of their inception of the idea that professional hunting was a gold mine waiting to be tapped (a thought for the bleeding hearts to consider - there's one of them right here on AR)!

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

As as I eluded to above...and Storms says in his post...the companies should do there best at protecting their blocks and budget anti-poaching in prior to buying the rights to a block. If its economically un-feasable to do both and companies are unwilling to take the blocks with out affording protection for them...then the laws of economics will lower their prices. But as long as companies are willing to just take them and squeeze every last dime out of them with out taking care of them...we will continue to have the crisis we are in now.

What makes you or Storm think that other outfitters do not have active anti-poaching projects on the ground?

I wasn't saying that, I know that most companies do have some sort of anti-poaching, even if it is just a doria for a few weeks every year. What I was getting at is that no one can match TGT in this regard, and to expect such is unrealistic.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I am just tired of hearing from others that TGTS is a bottomless pit. They too need for things to be profitable.

I know others work hard on anti-poaching as well and they too deserve their due.

That said...there are those who could/should...that don't.

Lane:

You might well be bored at hearing that the finances available to TGT are regurgitated from a bottomless pit but its a fact.

Money to the Friedkins is the least of their worries and if their "venture" can make a few bob, so much the better, but no one will shed a tear or file for bankruptcy if it doesn't.

It also has to be accepted that not everyone can afford to conduct anti-poaching operations in a grandiose style. The larger, more successful and well established companies are obviously in a better financial position than for example the newbies who barely have 2 pennies to rub together and were at the time of their inception of the idea that professional hunting was a gold mine waiting to be tapped (a thought for the bleeding hearts to consider - there's one of them right here on AR)!

Hi Fujo,
Let me first tell you that you trying to tell me about TGTS is akin to the choir preaching to the preacher...suffice it to say I am up to speed on the subject. But you do bring up a good point and a good analogy above.

First, the analogy: You liken the Friedkin Family to a bottomless pit. I am here to tell you that in this world, there is no such thing. The pit always has a bottom. For example, many thought that game in Africa was a bottomless pit but as you can hear well yourself...the cup is screeching along the bottom of the barrel now.

Second, the point: I have no sympathy for those who got into the business without being prepared to conduct it properly. We hunters go-to-bat repeatedly and preach on an on that hunting is a conservation tool...and...when conducted properly...it is a splendid one. For those companies who do little for conservation because they cannot afford it...they should go away...as proper conservation costs ARE (or should be) the price of doing business. From someone that has been in the trenches actively fighting the "antis" and trying to bring scientists on board with the hunting industry...I can tell you first hand that one of the most common gripes I hear (esp when it pertains to the Selous) is that: "many companies fail to or don't even try to protect their blocks from poachers." Until we (all hunters) do...it is an up-hill fight. Recently when talking to Dr. Begg in Niassa, she told me that the ele poaching is so bad...it has actually made the lion prides flourish as they just walk from one dead ele to the next.

So it seems a universal agreement here that TGTS takes stellar care of its blocks and wildlife...why is then that TZ took blocks from them that they wanted to keep? If conservation is the ultimate goal so that our kids and grandkids can enjoy what we did...the fittest should survive...meaning those companies who are best suited to take care of the blocks should at least be able to keep all that they desire. Would that not be best for the wild land and wildlife???

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I am just tired of hearing from others that TGTS is a bottomless pit. They too need for things to be profitable.

I know others work hard on anti-poaching as well and they too deserve their due.

That said...there are those who could/should...that don't.

Lane:

You might well be bored at hearing that the finances available to TGT are regurgitated from a bottomless pit but its a fact.

Money to the Friedkins is the least of their worries and if their "venture" can make a few bob, so much the better, but no one will shed a tear or file for bankruptcy if it doesn't.

It also has to be accepted that not everyone can afford to conduct anti-poaching operations in a grandiose style. The larger, more successful and well established companies are obviously in a better financial position than for example the newbies who barely have 2 pennies to rub together and were at the time of their inception of the idea that professional hunting was a gold mine waiting to be tapped (a thought for the bleeding hearts to consider - there's one of them right here on AR)!

Hi Fujo,
Let me first tell you that you trying to tell me about TGTS is akin to the choir preaching to the preacher...suffice it to say I am up to speed on the subject. But you do bring up a good point and a good analogy above.

First the analogy: You liken the Friedkin Family to a bottomless pit. I am here to tell you that in this world, there is no such thing. The pit always has a bottom. For example, many thought that game in Africa was a bottomless pit but as you can hear well yourself...the cup is screeching along the bottom of the barrel now.

Second the point: I have no sympathy for those who got into the business without being prepared to conduct properly. We hunters go-to-bat repeatedly and preach on an on that hunting is a conservation tool...and...when conducted properly...it is a splendid one. For those companies who do little for conservation because they cannot afford it...they should go away...as proper conservation costs ARE (or should be) the price of doing business. From someone that has been in the trenches actively fighting the "antis" and trying to bring on board scientists...I can tell you first hand that one of the most common gripes I hear (esp when it pertains to the Selous) is that: "many companies fail to or don't even try to protect their blocks from poachers." Until we (all hunters) do...it is an up-hill fight. Recently when talking to Dr. Begg in Niassa, she told me that the ele poaching is so bad...it has actually made the lion prides flourish as they just walk from one dead ele to the next.

So it seems a universal agreement here that TGTS takes stellar care of its blocks and wildlife...why is that TZ took blocks from them that they wanted to keep? If conservation is the ultimate goal so that our kids and grandkids can enjoy what we did...the fittest should survive...meaning those companies who are best suited to take care of the blocks should at least be able to keep all that they desire. Would that not be best for the wild land and wildlife.

Lane,

There a few points I like to make in addition to yours above.

I have been hunting in Tanzania for many years, and I have seen poached animals on practically all the concessions I have hunted on.

I have seen more poached elephants on concessions run by TGT, despite all their efforts, than any other concessions.

Other outfitters than TGT, who are in business to make a living, cannot afford to spend as much money on anti-poaching operations as TGT does.

I certainly don't expect them to.

To say that if they are unable to do so, they should get out of business is not very fair at all.

It is not their job.

It is the government's job.

And those who do capture poachers, they hand them to the government, who give them a slap on the rest and let them get on to it again.

So let us put the blame squarely where it belongs, and it certainly does not belong to be on the outfitters.

With all due respect Saeed, it is "my opinion" that if a company cannot do what it takes to take care of the land they lease...they should not be in the business to begin with. In today's world it is the price of doing business. CMS realized it a while ago...hence DAPU.

But I wholeheartedly agree that the government have ultimate responsibility for ending the poaching that is going on today.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
With all due respect Saeed, it is "my opinion" that if a company cannot do what it takes to take care of the land they lease...they should not be in the business to begin with. In today's world it is the price of doing business. CMS realized it a while ago...hence DAPU.

But I wholeheartedly agree that the government have ultimate responsibility for ending the poaching that is going on today.

quote:

First, the analogy: You liken the Friedkin Family to a bottomless pit.

Lane:

Please don't misquote me. Reference is made to the finances available to the Friedkin family as being a bottomless pit!

They chose to invest a fraction of their wealth in what we know as TGT and bloody good for them to be able to have a private reserve where the family can enjoy hunting privately or with friends and .... sell a few hunts here and there.

They (TGT) lost some of their concessions? - yep, quite a few others did as well so that more concessions were made available to new participants. Ask Ramoni how he felt when he got cleaned out!

There is one other who can match TGT and the rest of the outfitters are way out of contention finance-wise (with exception of Ortello Holdings maybe).

To state that everyone should be in a position to "safeguard" the wildlife in their concessions or don't participate in the business is preposterous - comparing CMS is not the solution either and by the looks of it he too cannot cope financially and seeks assistance from the hunting community to run DAPU.

Would you and others be happy and willing to fork out if the TZ outfitters started passing the hat as well?

Seeing you appear so well-versed on who's who and doing what, why don't you name the outfitters who are and those who are not doing what they should/could or won't with anti-poaching operations in their respective concessions?

quote:

- comparing CMS is not the solution either and by the looks of it he too cannot cope financially and seeks assistance from the hunting community to run DAPU.

Would you and others be happy and willing to fork out if the TZ outfitters started passing the hat as well?

Yep, I would be happy and willing to fork out more if the applicable outfitters started "passing the hat" as well. In a country where the authorities couldn't give a shit less about the big game, at least CMS is trying to do the right thing! So, are you suggesting that dangerous game safari hunters should get a "free pass" when it comes to protecting the big game that they pursue? I am just asking! Cheers

My opinion gentlemen, we hunters are already paying kings ransom for hunting DG and I assume and expect as well, that some of the proceeds should be/must go to management ( and anti poaching efforts ).
I also understand that it is Africa, but more the hunts will costs, less likely you will get more people interested.
It all comes hand to hand.
Once something becomes too exclusive ( too expensive ), you operators on the ground are in trouble and so is the game especially in the eyes of rest of the world.
Simply said, once you take middle class out of it, no one will care here.
And here, votes count where it matters

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

First, the analogy: You liken the Friedkin Family to a bottomless pit.

Lane:

Please don't misquote me. Reference is made to the finances available to the Friedkin family as being a bottomless pit!

They chose to invest a fraction of their wealth in what we know as TGT and bloody good for them to be able to have a private reserve where the family can enjoy hunting privately or with friends and .... sell a few hunts here and there.

They (TGT) lost some of their concessions? - yep, quite a few others did as well so that more concessions were made available to new participants. Ask Ramoni how he felt when he got cleaned out!

There is one other who can match TGT and the rest of the outfitters are way out of contention finance-wise (with exception of Ortello Holdings maybe).

To state that everyone should be in a position to "safeguard" the wildlife in their concessions or don't participate in the business is preposterous - comparing CMS is not the solution either and by the looks of it he too cannot cope financially and seeks assistance from the hunting community to run DAPU.

Would you and others be happy and willing to fork out if the TZ outfitters started passing the hat as well?

Seeing you appear so well-versed on who's who and doing what, why don't you name the outfitters who are and those who are not doing what they should/could or won't with anti-poaching operations in their respective concessions?

Hi Fujo,
Please...lets not turn this into a pissing match as I meant the thread to just stimulate thought...nothing else. My quote was to state even the Friedkin Family Funds have a bottom...which they do. I did not mean that you were incenuating that the Family is a pit...again if that is how you took it...my apologies.

"My opinion" FWIW, from someone who argues with those who pass these legislations in which all implore is that: "if we are going to state that hunting is a conservation tool (which I believe)...we MUST employ conservation strategies or our words will fall upon deaf ears.

One complaint that I hear over and over...is that some companies do little to nothing to protect the land and wildlife they lease from poaching. It is my opinion that in today's times...anti-poaching costs are the price of doing business. Again...that is only "my opinion" no way implies anyone else's.

But as I agreed with Saeed and others...ultimately, it is up to the government to stop it.

quote:

Originally posted by Cajun1956:
So, are you suggesting that dangerous game safari hunters should get a "free pass" when it comes to protecting the big game that they pursue? I am just asking! Cheers

Cajun 1956:

Quite frankly I do not see why a paying hunter, plains or DG hunting, should be burdened with extraordinary operational costs.

Tanzania is already over priced as it is without having to coerce the client into paying for something that in reality should be shouldered by the Authorities.

I see both sides of this. After coughing up a lung to Uncle Sam today I plan to contribute to DAPU. Having said that, the upward rising costs of dangerous game hunting has me reconsidering some hunts as too expensive. I do okay but when is too much? Adding on extra fees? That is tough.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

Quite frankly I do not see why a paying hunter, plains or DG hunting, should be burdened with extraordinary operational costs.

Tanzania is already over priced as it is without having to coerce the client into paying for something that in reality should be shouldered by the Authorities.

Fujo is quite right. Hunters in Tanzania do already pay a daily conservation fee just to be in the area........ but whether that conservation fee or any part thereof is used for conservation is a different matter.

I find all this so ironic!

A while back, the Tanzania government raised the price of renting their blocks.

That raise wasn't very big in the great scope of safari prices.

We then heard a loud outcry from the hunting community of how ridiculous this price hike was.

Now we have individuals calling on outfitters to have dedicated anti-poaching patrols, at their own expenses!

The illogic of the human mind never ceases to amaze me!

Actually, what "I" am stating is that every company should budget for some anti-poaching effort before buying a block. If the economics are not their...stay away from it. If nobody will lease the blocks for the asking price due to unfeasability...the laws of economics may kick in and the blocks become cheaper...hence allowing for profit and conservation.

That is my take home message.

But ultimately...I agree with you Saeed...the Government must do the bulk of the work.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Originally posted by Cajun1956:
So, are you suggesting that dangerous game safari hunters should get a "free pass" when it comes to protecting the big game that they pursue? I am just asking! Cheers

Cajun 1956:

Quite frankly I do not see why a paying hunter, plains or DG hunting, should be burdened with extraordinary operational costs.

Tanzania is already over priced as it is without having to coerce the client into paying for something that in reality should be shouldered by the Authorities.

Fujo, thanks for bringing me to my senses! What the heck was I thinking! If a safari operator charges me an extra $20 per day (the equivalent of 2 rounds of Federal .470 Nitro Express - after taxes) to fund anti-poaching initiatives, then I will be forced to sell my custom built .470 Nitro Express double rifle so that I can continue to pursue dangerous game hunting in either Tanzania or Zimbabwe!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I find all this so ironic!

A while back, the Tanzania government raised the price of renting their blocks.

That raise wasn't very big in the great scope of safari prices.

We then heard a loud outcry from the hunting community of how ridiculous this price hike was.

Now we have individuals calling on outfitters to have dedicated anti-poaching patrols, at their own expenses!

The illogic of the human mind never ceases to amaze me!

+1

quote:

Fujo, thanks for bringing me to my senses! What the heck was I thinking! If a safari operator charges me an extra $20 per day (the equivalent of 2 rounds of Federal .470 Nitro Express - after taxes) to fund anti-poaching initiatives, then I will be forced to sell my custom built .470 Nitro Express double rifle so that I can continue to pursue dangerous game hunting in either Tanzania or Zimbabwe!

Cajun:

Depending on the duration of your DG hunt which could be 10 - 21 days would equate to between 20 and 42 rounds of your 470 or $200 - $420.

Indeed, a contribution it would well be but one would need a helluva lot more of those 470 rounds to finance an anti-poaching unit.

Each unit does a 10-12 day stint - breaks for 5 and goes back for another sortie; basically 2 patrols per month.

Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of financing involved to run an 8-10 man unit per day? (without aircraft or helicopters)!

People complain about Tz prices now......... they'd complain a lot more if they got hit by another whacking great increase.

As for the law of economics/supply & demand kicking in, don't hold your breath on that one. The Govts of Africa don't give a flying f**K about it because there's always some sucker western politician willing to bung them a bit more for their Swiss bank accounts. A huge slice of the money gained from hunting now disappears up it's own bum so more will go the same way.

Price increases aren't the answer.

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, what does "TGT" stand for?

Tanzania Game Trackers. TGT is high end safari company.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
People complain about Tz prices now......... they'd complain a lot more if they got hit by another whacking great increase.

As for the law of economics/supply & demand kicking in, don't hold your breath on that one. The Govts of Africa don't give a flying f**K about it because there's always some sucker western politician willing to bung them a bit more for their Swiss bank accounts. A huge slice of the money gained from hunting now disappears up it's own bum so more will go the same way.

Price increases aren't the answer.

Agreed!

What I was insinuating was that if all credible operators got together and collectively refused to re-up there lease for current prices...prices would go down...thus providing revenue for anti-poaching.

I know probably pie in the sky thinking...but that is how it should happen. Along with governmental police/legal action against the poaching cartels.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
People complain about Tz prices now......... they'd complain a lot more if they got hit by another whacking great increase.

As for the law of economics/supply & demand kicking in, don't hold your breath on that one. The Govts of Africa don't give a flying f**K about it because there's always some sucker western politician willing to bung them a bit more for their Swiss bank accounts. A huge slice of the money gained from hunting now disappears up it's own bum so more will go the same way.

Price increases aren't the answer.

Agreed!

What I was insinuating was that if all credible operators got together and collectively refused to re-up there lease for current prices...prices would go down...thus providing revenue for anti-poaching.

I know probably pie in the sky thinking...but that is how it should happen. Along with governmental police/legal action against the poaching cartels.

In principal I agree with you Lane, but you are asking a lot of people to take the risk that can ultimately affect the financial well being of their family and all of the employees/families. There is also the chance that others will be waiting in the wings to take over leases if the government tries to play hardball initially, which could leave the original operators hanging out to dry.

How about hunters taking the responsibility of saying enough is enough. Why are there always well to do hunters who will snivel and then just pay what ever new and inflated government fees come along in order to go on their hunts. I am sorry but rich hunters have caused many of the problems. Their willingness to pay ridiculous fees for an ever growing number of safari related items has contributed to the situation.

Governments do not need to spend money on wildlife/habitat enhancement and anti-poaching units, or even the local communities if they can just pocket all the hunting related fees paid by operators and their clients, while shifting the responsibility for all of these things onto the operator as a part of "doing business"…….. and the operator ultimately passes it on to the client through daily fees, obvious government fee lists and jacked up trophy fees.

As long as the hunters will keep paying it, it will carry on. If hunters got together and said no, the operators could then turn to the government and point a finger. No matter how you slice it though the good operators are going to be taking a hit.

Rates for 'dangerous game' and 'glamor game' around the world have gone up and up because there are always the few with more money than common sense, who will continue to pay, regardless of rates, so they can continue to stroke their ego…….. which is all it really amounts to in the end.

Guys,
Here is the bottom line. Another 10 years like the last decade and there will be no more chance at rectifying the ele in TZ. It is now or never.

If you go back and read my very first post...the only thing that makes any sense at all for TZ, especially the Selous, is an age based system for targeting 40+ year old bulls.

Age based harvest verses very limited quota (or worst case scenario being none) allows hunters to still go ele hunting in TZ and track and look for those aged bulls and allows outfitters to continue to sell ele hunts. A low daily rate and high trophy fee for harvest system seems like a good idea as well.

Thoughts?

If there is to be any chance to preserve ele hunting for the future...hunters must be seen as leading the way for conservation.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

If you go back and read my very first post...the only thing that makes any sense at all for TZ, especially the Selous, is an age based system for targeting 40+ year old bulls.

Age based harvest verses very limited quota (or worst case scenario being none) allows hunters to still go ele hunting in TZ and track and look for those aged bulls and allows outfitters to continue to sell ele hunts. A low daily rate and high trophy fee for harvest system seems like a good idea as well.

Thoughts?

If there is to be any chance to preserve ele hunting for the future...hunters must be seen as leading the way for conservation.

In the case of TZ this would make perfect sense.
And your right, hunters must be seen as leading the way with conservation.

Fujo and Saeed make a lot of sense, as they always do.

Nothwithstanding, if the government isn't going to do the job, someone has to.

I've seen government operations in TZ. Frankly, they seem pretty effective, if not in catching the actual poachers, definitely terrorizing the local population.

The TZ authorities seem to be great interrogators as well. I'm not sure what information was gleaned from the 20 or so prisoners I saw, but from what I could tell they had been thoroughly interrogated. 'Nuf said.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Fujo and Saeed make a lot of sense, as they always do.

Nothwithstanding, if the government isn't going to do the job, someone has to.

I've seen government operations in TZ. Frankly, they seem pretty effective, if not in catching the actual poachers, definitely terrorizing the local population.

The TZ authorities seem to be great interrogators as well. I'm not sure what information was gleaned from the 20 or so prisoners I saw, but from what I could tell they had been thoroughly interrogated. 'Nuf said.

I would like nothing more than for TZ to station military patrols around the perimeter of the Selous and exert control over the poaching. That said...it has been on-going for a decade gaining steam each year. Also...it is NO secret that it is going on!!! Seems to me...that if we were to rely upon the government to do something...we would not be having this conversation now.

Some operators quit offering ele hunts from their blocks long ago...recognizing the severity of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Fujo and Saeed make a lot of sense, as they always do.

Nothwithstanding, if the government isn't going to do the job, someone has to.

I've seen government operations in TZ. Frankly, they seem pretty effective, if not in catching the actual poachers, definitely terrorizing the local population.

The TZ authorities seem to be great interrogators as well. I'm not sure what information was gleaned from the 20 or so prisoners I saw, but from what I could tell they had been thoroughly interrogated. 'Nuf said.

Unfortunately the "authorities" in TZ and elsewhere are often times involved in said poaching operations to one degree or another!!!! Too much Chinese money/influence across the continent these days - its a real damn shame.

Lavaca - You gonna be in Lukwati South this year? I'm gonna be next door in the Rukwa Game Reserve from August 1-21, 2014.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Too much Chinese money/influence across the continent these days - its a real damn shame.

You've got that right. They're raping the continent.