Elephant in Tanzania/USF&W moratorium

17 April 2014, 21:16

Cajun1956

quote:
Originally posted by fujotupu:
[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)![/QUOTE}

Mr. Fujotupu, with all due respect, yes, I do know what it costs to equip an anti-poaching unit. Within the past 3 months, I have personally equipped four (4) anti-poaching rangers (located within the Lower Zambezi Valley) with anti-poaching kits including, but not limited to, GPS's, handheld radios, binoculars, compasses, batteries, water purification straws, boots, hats, uniforms, 2-man tents, bedrolls, etc. In addition, I have funded other anti-poaching initiatives that I can share with you via PM if you are interested. Please advise! Oh, by the say, I do not own a custom built .470 Nitro Express double rifle. I was just using the .470 NE as an example. Both times I have hunted Southern Africa, I hunted with a previously owned Whitworth Express .375 H&H rifle that I purchased from a gunsmith (on consignment) and a new CZ-550 .416 Rigby rifle that I found on the sale rack ($699) at a local Gander Mountain store several years ago. Cheers and good hunting my friend!

17 April 2014, 21:24

fujotupu

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

Lane:

They probably stopped offering ele hunts because they did not have any shootable ones to offer.

Poaching has been ongoing for many years, mostly containable, but has escalated to unprecedented proportions over the past several years for obvious and known reasons that are beyond the outfitter's control and regardless of his commitments to providing anti-poaching patrol units.

I might add that TZ has been the only country which has applied regulations on what could be defined as a "huntable" elephant; this regulation was based on: either the length or weight of a single tusk; whichever met the minimum requirements.

Most everywhere else we see or hear of elephants getting whacked as: PAC, ration, tuskless, non-exportable, etc. of which none of these criteria apply or have ever applied to TZ.

Suggesting the introduction of an age formula (40+) to qualify an elephant as being a shootable specimen has nothing to do with the current problem as poachers are certainly not going to respect your theory.

17 April 2014, 22:01

ledvm

quote:
Originally posted by fujotupu:
quote:
Some operators quit offering ele hunts from their blocks long ago...recognizing the severity of the problem.

Lane:

They probably stopped offering ele hunts because they did not have any shootable ones to offer.

Poaching has been ongoing for many years, mostly containable, but has escalated to unprecedented proportions over the past several years for obvious and known reasons that are beyond the outfitter's control and regardless of his commitments to providing anti-poaching patrol units.

I might add that TZ has been the only country which has applied regulations on what could be defined as a "huntable" elephant; this regulation was based on: either the length or weight of a single tusk; whichever met the minimum requirements.

Most everywhere else we see or hear of elephants getting whacked as: PAC, ration, tuskless, non-exportable, etc. of which none of these criteria apply or have ever applied to TZ.

Suggesting the introduction of an age formula (40+) to qualify an elephant as being a shootable specimen has nothing to do with the current problem as poachers are certainly not going to respect your theory.

Fujo,
The ones I speak of...I speak to regularly. They do have 40+ yr old bulls occasionally but they are few and far between. They make the conscious decision to not allow ele hunting in their concessions strictly due to the level of poaching going on.

While I am quite aware poachers are going shoot anything with teeth...when the population is as taxed as it is right now in many areas...particularly the Selous...adding insult to injury by harvesting <40ish bulls certainly is not the answer.

For us to get ele from TZ back on the importable list...some sort of change will have to occur...just saying it is the way it is because that's the way it is...ain't gonna cut it for USF&W. They are going to have to see some steps in a positive direction.

So...I ask you sir...a TZ citizen and PH...what do you propose???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.

17 April 2014, 23:03

shakari

Guys

I truly hate to say this but if the USF&WS can defy the US courts with regard to the actions by John Jackson & Conservation Force on the Moz elephant product ban for a good number of years, they're gonna do exactly the same thing with this ban....... and what's more I reckon there's a bloody good chance they'll do the same for lion & rhino in the near(ish) future.

The situation is made worse by the fact that USF&WS do have a grain of truth in their argument & they're using that grain to meddle in something they have no right to meddle in. (Meddling is the job of CITES!

)

40 odd years ago, Tz was producing (occasional)elephants of around 140 lbs & it's a helluva long time since that happened & as Fujo so quite rightly says, the country has suffered massive & ever increasing poaching whilst the Govt sit back & do sweet FA about it.

In the case of Zim. The land seizures (which are activated by Govt) have resulted in a free for all that only stops when the game is finished.

I agree completely with the arguments that this ban will do more harm than good but it's very plain to see USF&WS are more interested in playing politics than in conservation & have been that way for decades.

I honestly don't think there's a hope in hell this will change at least until you get a change of Govt & very possibly, not even then! Or at least, not immediately.

& before anyone asks. No. I don't have any of the answers.

Hope I'm wrong though & I wish you blokes all the luck in the world with it!

17 April 2014, 23:41

ledvm

quote:
Originally posted by shakari:
Guys

I truly hate to say this but if the USF&WS can defy the US courts with regard to the actions by John Jackson & Conservation Force on the Moz elephant product ban for a good number of years, they're gonna do exactly the same thing with this ban....... and what's more I reckon there's a bloody good chance they'll do the same for lion & rhino in the near(ish) future.

The situation is made worse by the fact that USF&WS do have a grain of truth in their argument & they're using that grain to meddle in something they have no right to meddle in. (Meddling is the job of CITES! )

40 odd years ago, Tz was producing (occasional)elephants of around 140 lbs & it's a helluva long time since that happened & as Fujo so quite rightly says, the country has suffered massive & ever increasing poaching whilst the Govt sit back & do sweet FA about it.

In the case of Zim. The land seizures (which are activated by Govt) have resulted in a free for all that only stops when the game is finished.

I agree completely with the arguments that this ban will do more harm than good but it's very plain to see USF&WS are more interested in playing politics than in conservation & have been that way for decades.

I honestly don't think there's a hope in hell this will change at least until you get a change of Govt & very possibly, not even then! Or at least, not immediately.

& before anyone asks. No. I don't have any of the answers.

Hope I'm wrong though & I wish you blokes all the luck in the world with it!

Unfortunately Steve,

There is a lot of truth to what you say.

I am just not one for going down with out a battle.

18 April 2014, 00:05

fujotupu

quote:
I am just not one for going down with out a battle.

Then please don't wage war against the outfitters, most of whom have been in the business longer than you have been hunting or began dreaming of going to Africa.

Sometimes you forget that the same outfitters you are lambasting have exhausted their efforts and a lot of their hard-earned finances in trying to set "things" right - remember that after all, it is their and the future of their next of kin which is at stake.

Someone I (and you) know, spends around $60/70K a year on anti-poaching activities. Just imagine how far a contribution equivalent of 2 x 470 rounds per day is going to get you.

18 April 2014, 01:55

ledvm

quote:
Originally posted by fujotupu:
quote:
I am just not one for going down with out a battle.

Then please don't wage war against the outfitters, most of whom have been in the business longer than you have been hunting or began dreaming of going to Africa.

Sometimes you forget that the same outfitters you are lambasting have exhausted their efforts and a lot of their hard-earned finances in trying to set "things" right - remember that after all, it is their and the future of their next of kin which is at stake.

Someone I (and you) know, spends around $60/70K a year on anti-poaching activities. Just imagine how far a contribution equivalent of 2 x 470 rounds per day is going to get you.

Fujo,
One thing for certain...I am not lambasting anyone. 80+% of the outfitters are salt of the earth. I admire them deeply and I know they are fighting "Africa" and as the saying goes "Africa always wins." But there is another old saying that goes...1 or 2 bad apples spoils the whole basket sometimes.

18 April 2014, 08:40

Saeed

How about those who feel outfitters should fight poaching give some money towards that effort?

I bet no outfitter you hunt with will refuse some extra cash to help for the anti-poaching they do.

18 April 2014, 09:03

Cajun1956

quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
How about those who feel outfitters should fight poaching give some money towards that effort?

I bet no outfitter you hunt with will refuse some extra cash to help for the anti-poaching they do.

18 April 2014, 11:02

fujotupu

quote:
But there is another old saying that goes...1 or 2 bad apples spoils the whole basket sometimes. coffee

Lane:

That's more like it! - Care to expose them so that potential clients can be diverted away from them and hopefully put them out of business ?

18 April 2014, 13:15

Bwanamich

The funds required for adequate antipoaching in Africa outside of a very few National Parks can only be derived through philanthropy. The tourism private sector - for the foreseeable future - cannot provided the needed funds, whether directly or through the funds Gov derives from it.

18 April 2014, 17:24

ledvm

TZ-Selous-revisited