quote:

Originally posted by the Pom:
Fair comment Steve! We do need to be honest with ourselves.
No farmer ever improved his herd by selling off his best stock and breeding from the culls.
In Scotland, fifty years ago, it was explained to me before I shot my first Red stag that we would be searching for the worst stag we could find. The best would only be taken when they had "gone back" so far they could no longer hold hinds.
I am as much a hypocrite as any on this forum because I have shot quite a few trophies in their prime out of breeding herds.
If we were serious about long-term conservation and improvement of the herds we would be lobbying african governments for a completely different approach to trophy hunting.
Not that I would expect any change from governments like Ethiopia or Zambia where their only interest in wildlife is how much income it generates for them.
Perhaps instead of only being able to shoot lions over 5 years old we should only be allowed to take lions under 5 and not with a pride. These are the ones that cause most human/wildlife conflict. Leave the black-manes to hold their prides and rear more cubs.
Where there are too many elephants, shooting a few heavy-tusked trophy bulls makes little impact on the total number of eles, but it can have an impact on their genetic potential. Serious culling of females would improve the phenotype of the remainder by leaving more browse to go around but would have no effect on the genetics unless mainly tuskless were removed.
How can a country like Zambia expect trophy hunting to have any impact on their elephant surplus when they charge the same trophy fee for a tuskless cow as a 60lb bull? Hypocrite that I am, I know which I would take at the same money.
I don't expect the proposal to be popular but if we really put the welfare of the species above our own personal gratification we would lobby the relevant governments to ban taking trophy bulls over 30lb a side and halve the bull quota. Tuskless elephants would have no government fee and no limit on their quota and tusked cows would only have a nominal fee.
Having said all that, it wouldn't make any difference to the anti's stance because what they really object to is someone actually enjoying their hunt. It is a political objection not a logical one. They would prefer water holes to be poisoned or "traditional hunters" using snares.
I look forward to all the shit that will now land on my head!

quote:

Tuskless elephants would have no government fee and no limit on their quota

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
While I get what you are saying, I don't think the issue is hunting per se when you comment on decreased game and quality.

What is going on is someone screwing up.

If they are killing the right number via quota then it should pretty much be invisible. The operator should be running the concession for viability, and that would mean when you start seeing changes in your population you start looking in to it and modifying your offtake.

One thing I recalled about Chanjuzi when I hunted there was the number of animals I shot that were for the local chief. While I liked it at the time (more hunting...) I do think that this practice may well have contributed to what you are commenting on.

I also know that the hunting areas are generally designed to be the border areas for the parks and they serve to reduce human/animal conflict for the local populace.

So you will see a combination of population migration from areas with more pressure as well as an offtake result- It takes more than 1-2 years to grow a trophy animal, yet they seem to show up pretty well and quickly when you remove pressure- even in something as mundane as whitetail deer.

Compare results in areas owned by hunters (or with long term leases) to places with relatively short term leases.