http://www.wildlifeextra.com/g...game-hunting.html#cr

I have recently had very interesting discussion with the people of accurate reloading about the conservation of animals, lion in particular. During the course of these convos i was quite often informed how beneficial hunting was to Africa's economy, and that that along side conservation benefits was good argument for hunting to continue.
Leaving aside conservation for the moment, as even this article does not back the ban of hunting but questions what would happen conservation wise if hunting was banned, this article does not look good for the 'claim' that hunting contributes as much to the economy as we are led to believe.
I personally had doubts about this anyway considering in Kenya photo tourism brings in over $840,000 a year compared to hunting bringing only $200,000.
Out of that $200,000 half is generated by South Africa where canned hunting is the practice and frowned upon by many i have spoken to. Take that away and hunting contributes even less than i'm led to believe.
Then considering the actual contribution to the economy is only 0.06% of this, well hunting doesn't contribute much does it?
There is also the claim of huge number of jobs created by the hunting industry but this article claims that only 15,000 are employed salaried, 18,000 in total out of 150 million people who live in the eight main big hunting countries. Not such a huge amount when you take population into account!

So all in all i guess i'm asking does hunting really contribute that much to the countries economy? Or is the only thing really benefiting the hunting oufitters etc pockets?

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
compared to hunting bringing only $200,000.

My guess is this number should be closer to $US200 million.(minimum) I can pick almost any dozen hunt reports here and find more than $200,000.

What's the old quip? "statistics, damn statistics and damn lies"

My bad forgot to add the million on the end.
Should have read $200 million and $840 million.
Either way same outcome!!

no ma'am, my bad.

It should be "lies, damn lies and statistics"

And as you say; either way same outcome.

Good day to you.

Well come back my dear.

With respect dismissing this research as lies is very easy to do. How about we have a proper discussion about it and you show me evidence to the contrary?
People find it very easy to accept 'evidence' that backs up their belief but when it comes to something which challenges that belief they choose to ignore it or make light or claim it is lies.
It's not long ago that i wouldn't have even consider that hunting could be a conservation tool but by putting my emotional response aside (as much as possible) and being rational i have learnt a lot.
Is it really too much to ask others to try and do the same?

Thank you Fairgame,

I've had some internet problems :-(

I think that the real benifit to having hunting in Africa is that without it there will be $200 million U.S. less benifitting the people and 15000 more unemployed people and no reason to conserve wildlife because there will be no one on the land scape to identify illegal behavior and deter poaching except in the parks where most of the photo sefaris take place and well that is ok if you only want wildlife in parks and zoos.

quote:

Originally posted by oddsix:
I think that the real benifit to having hunting in Africa is that without it there will be $200 million U.S. less benifitting the people and 15000 more unemployed people and no reason to conserve wildlife because there will be no one on the land scape to identify illegal behavior and deter poaching except in the parks where most of the photo sefaris take place and well that is ok if you only want wildlife in parks and zoos.

+1

A little statistic for you - the wildlife department ZAWA here recently announced that incomes from both consumptive and non consumptive were parallel, although it was indicated that photographic would probably tip the scales next year.

However this would be due to improved infrastructure within our Parks. Note to date this tourism does not fund or have any social responsibility to rural communities as they have been alienated from these protected areas.

Therefore we hunters are utilising marginal communal lands that are not really desirable to suit other models.

If my little project in the Kafue could derive better incomes from non consumptive models then I am all ears.

quote:

I think that the real benifit to having hunting in Africa is that without it there will be $200 million U.S. less benifitting the people and 15000 more unemployed people and no reason to conserve wildlife because there will be no one on the land scape to identify illegal behavior and deter poaching except in the parks where most of the photo sefaris take place and well that is ok if you only want wildlife in parks and zoos.

Good point.
However this is presuming that the 15000 will not find work if the land is used for something else and presumption that the £200 million is more than could be brought in for the land being used in a different way.

Conservation left aside for the sake of this discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
considering in Kenya photo tourism brings in over $840,000

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
My bad forgot to add the million on the end.
...................$840 million.

I would really, really like to see the accounting that came up with those numbers.

$840 million for photo safaris in Kenya alone!?

Give me a break!

If each photo safari client spent $5,000, it would take 168,000 clients to equal $840 million.

There is no presumption. There is no other work and the land is not being used in another way. If there was a better way to have everyone working I think someone would have thought of it already and we wouldn't have to discuss how bad things are in Afrca because everyone would be too buisy working. As for the land bringing in more than $200 million I'm sure it could Strip mining brings in alot of cash but does no good to the health of the people and wildlife and is a short term solution where hunting has prooven to last. I think it has been going on since man first walked the earth?

quote:

I personally had doubts about this anyway considering in Kenya photo tourism brings in over $840,000 a year compared to hunting bringing only $200,000.

I don't quite understand your figures here although I'm not surprised that photo safaris in Kenya result in higher income than hunting. This is to be expected since hunting is not allowed in Kenya. Is this an indicator that the balance of the numbers being quoted are not fully accurate?

Jo,

I just can't believe those numbers are correct either. I will wait and see what Bwanamich has to say about those numbers as he keeps very close tabs on both forms of incomme in TZ.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

I think that the real benifit to having hunting in Africa is that without it there will be $200 million U.S. less benifitting the people and 15000 more unemployed people and no reason to conserve wildlife because there will be no one on the land scape to identify illegal behavior and deter poaching except in the parks where most of the photo sefaris take place and well that is ok if you only want wildlife in parks and zoos.

Good point.
However this is presuming that the 15000 will not find work if the land is used for something else and presumption that the £200 million is more than could be brought in for the land being used in a different way.

Conservation left aside for the sake of this discussion.

Why would you leave conservation out of the discussion? because w/o conservation you don't have a photo sefari or hunting. Meaning your employment figures and monentary income are moot.

[I personally had doubts about this anyway considering in Kenya photo tourism brings in over $840,000 a year compared to hunting bringing only $200,000.

Kenya is a Bad example and a good example.Kenya stopped hunting and their game numbers outside of the parks fell to almost 0. In comparison to Tanzania their game numbers have increased due to a hunting demand. So much so Kenya is going to and has If im not mistaken re-opened hunting.

We are talking more than just money here, we are talking about the conservation of animals OUTSIDE of the parks.Animals running on tribal land competing with cattle.Why should the tribes tolerate animals and Lions that compete with and kill their cattle?
Keeping in mind that any self respecting hunter/Safari operater will only target Mature animals mostly in or past their prime.
The herd or pride in general is not targeted. In most areas protected,Anti-poaching squads Protected by the chief in areas as he gets some money if they get somthing in his area etc.

And as for the money thats generated I can tell you the local parks takes a fair amount to run their parks and Im sure to put in their pockets ?? but as mentioned its better in the official hands than in The US/Europe etc B.M.O. a hunting ban.This will just start a poaching scurge for the asian lion bone trade.

Even if that Money is going to a pocket there is still a measure of "Worth" on the animal which in itself will protect it.

Its more than a GDP its giving them worth and that protects them.

In SAfrica Hunting tourism by far brings in more $$ than Photographic safaris and The game farm industry is 60-80% bigger in game/square miles than the National parks

Organized Hunting with strict Quotas is the only way you will save the lion and all other sustainable species.

Hunting as a conservation tool
Hunting used to have, and still has, a key role to play in African conservation.

That's not what the title of the article suggests, but nice that this is acknowledged in the small print, which we know the antis don't bother reading.


It is not certain that the conditions will remain the same. Hunting does not however play a significant economic or social role and does not contribute at all to good governance.
Okay then, since it is not economic or social, I wonder if they can enlighten us as to what role hunting does play...

The question, however, can be summarised today as: can we do conservation better than big game hunting has up until now, in those areas where big game hunting is practiced? This is not at all sure, all the more so in that big game hunting pays for itself.

No revelations there, isn't this what we have been saying forever? Once again though, nice to see this acknowledged in the small print

The advent of consideration of environmental services and sustainable financing makes it possible to envisage financing these networks from a new angle. The environment is increasingly seen as a global good which cannot be used exclusively for individual interests or those of a minority.

There are a handful of individuals financing conservation areas in Zim who have done more to preserve the environment here than the rest of the world combined. I'm sure future generations won't mind which group, minority or otherwise, is preserving the environment right now , so long as it is actually being preserved.



In modern protected area networks, hunting areas still have an important role to play in conservation: that of financing and maintaining the peripheral areas around conservation blocks.

WTF? And I was actually taking my responses seriously there for a while.... How is it possible to take such blatant contradiction seriously? Who are these clowns anyway, can they not bring something more constructive to the table? And for their information, the peripheral areas around 'conservation blocks' ARE conservation blocks. Really idiotic, no wonder the outlook is bleak.

jolouburn

When I read your assumption on the amount of money and jobs that are created by hunting I immediately remembered a questionnaire that was done in the South African hunting and game conservation magazine of which I am a member of.I searched for the information and found it under the website www.afgri.co.za (unfortunately it is only in Afrikaans)but the figures you can confirm for figures is figures.

This research was conducted by dr.Peet van der Merwe and Prof. Melville Saayman(in 2004) both members of the reputable University of Potchefstroom where I also obtained my degree.

According to their research there is 200 000 biltong(meat) hunters in RSA.They spend on average R4130 on food beverages alcohol and petrol, diesel overnight expenses etc. They spend on average R11 752 on the game they hunt for a total of R15752.37. If you multiply this with the 200 000 it works out to a whopping R3150474 000. This may sound like a small amount in the USA. In South Africa this is quite a bit of money.Sorry I must ad that 76% is spend in South Africa and the remainder mainly in Namibië.

This does not include foreign trophy hunters that also spends a pretty penny.

Prof van der Hooven of the University of Pretoria (www.gamefarmnet.co.za) also in Afrikaans(sorry) also did studies. In 2001 the only national park where the utilization of game was allowed was in the Pilansberg game reserve in North West Province(I say was, not sure if it is still allowed). His research has shown that one foreign trophy hunter spends the same amount of money on a hunt as 2000 day visitors.

Now the areas where most game farms are situated in South Africa is usually areas where crop farming can not take place. These areas where traditionally cattle farming areas. Now cattle farming is not very labor intensive. My cousin owns a cattle farm in Limpopo province. His labor consists of himself and 3 laborers.

The farm is about 3000 hectares.If this was an intensive game(hunting) farm he would need at least double the amount of people.

Lastly and I have to add this: There is more game in South Africa on game farms than in all the nature conservation areas.

This is not thumb sucking this is hard facts.

Aplogies but i do not have time to address everyone right now as i am just on a break from work.

JBrown,

I do not have the source of the figures to hand but i will post it when i get chance.

oddsix,
You may well be right. It still does not help though with regards to the fact hunting actually (according to the research) brings in nowhere near the revenue people are led to believe for the countries economy.

oday450,
The figures are based on Kenya a country who prohibits hunting and then the main other 8 African countries which allow it. It appears one african country brings in four times more revenue than 8 do.
Again i will put the source up when i have more time.

Ledvm,
We have discussed these figures before in my other thread. Noone disputed them i don't think, they just claimed Kenyas wildlife is suffering as a result of non-hunting due to poachers etc and not having the protection of hunting outfits.

oddsix,
I would leave it out because this was never about conservation, it was about claims that african countries benefit immensely economically from hunting when it appears they really don't.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
considering in Kenya photo tourism brings in over $840,000

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
My bad forgot to add the million on the end.
...................$840 million.

I would really, really like to see the accounting that came up with those numbers.

$840 million for photo safaris in Kenya alone!?

Give me a break!

If each photo safari client spent $5,000, it would take 168,000 clients to equal $840 million.

And if the average photo tourist stayed for only one week that would mean that Kenya has 24,000 photo tourist there per day YEAR ROUND including the rainy season.

I never realized their The Nairobi airport was so busy bringing in the 8oo plane loads a day.

I am not sure if I read this correctly. However, it appears that if you include Kenya on both sides of the equation, they will quite obviously be an imbalance. Kenya has tourism but not hunting. It should be excluded from both to be valid.

Don't know how long it is since you lot went on a photo safari but you're talking £6000 upwards.

quote:

So all in all i guess i'm asking does hunting really contribute that much to the countries economy? Or is the only thing really benefiting the hunting oufitters etc pockets?

Anyone care to address the actual reason i started this thread?

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

Anyone care to address the actual reason i started this thread?

Only you know the reason you started this thread.

But I would like to ask you......

"Tourist hunters kill around 105 000 animals per year, including around 640 elephants, 3 800 buffalo, 600 lions and 800 leopards. Such quantities are not necessarily reasonable. It can e noted for example, that killing 600 lions out of a total population of around 25 000 (i.e. 2.4%) is not sustainable. A hunting trip usually lasts from one to three weeks, during which time each hunter kills an average of two to ten animals, depending on the country."


Could you tell us where these 600 Lions are being killed. I believe Zambia has 45 on quota last year. So the 600 (even assuming I would believe it for a second) may well be canned Lions in RSA in which case it's completely sustainable.

Secondly, where did the 25,000 total Lion population come from? How is it these sources are so good at having exact numbers of wild animals when actual scientists/biologists with boots on the ground there are unable to even tell us how many Lions are in Zambia for instance?

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

So all in all i guess i'm asking does hunting really contribute that much to the countries economy? Or is the only thing really benefiting the hunting oufitters etc pockets?

Anyone care to address the actual reason i started this thread?

It contributes some but more importantly it protects and conserves large tracts of wild Africa and it's inhabitants which is priceless.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Don't know how long it is since you lot went on a photo safari but you're talking £6000 upwards.

Don't know where you have your numbers from, but you can get very good photo safaris in Kenya for $5000 in 2011.
Here is an example: http://www.kenyasafaripackages...hotosafari-kenya.htm
Must be a bargain this one I guess

David Hulme,

Please don't make assumptions. I came here as an absolute anti but i still take the time to read the small print.
Now i'm somewhere sat on the fence but still learning, however believe you me i can put up a bloody good argument which SUPPORTS hunting and i have.
I can't answer any of your other questions as i don't know the answers, i just put this out there as a discussion piece, i'm making no assumptions from it.

Anton van der spek,

They are not MY assumptions they are pieces of info stated from the research done. No different to any piece of research put on here.
2004 research is a little outdated in my opinion but please if you care to source it i'll read it and take it on board.

larryshores,

Sorry i don't understand what you are asking.

Frostbit,
You can ask away but its not my research, try asking the people who wrote it. I only put it out there for discussion.
However most research indicates these figures that i have seen.

Fairgame,

Thank you.

Norwegainwoods,

Im in the uk, maybe there is a price difference. Nothing under that kind of money that is reputable here.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

So all in all i guess i'm asking does hunting really contribute that much to the countries economy? Or is the only thing really benefiting the hunting oufitters etc pockets?

Anyone care to address the actual reason i started this thread?

If you think all the photo people are keeping the money in country you are greatly mistaken. Most are owned by multi national hospitality investment groups.

There is a Brit travel magazine;
http://www.travelafricamag.com/

Buy a few copies and see who is building the "premier" lodges.....you think they are not expecting a return for the investment?

Oh ya....they just give it to the locals.

quote:

arryshores,

Sorry i don't understand what you are asking.

Stating. Larry is pointing out that Kenya does not draw an income from hunting and therefore cannot be used as a parallel. The major countries are (not in order) South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana, Ethiopia, CAR, West Africa and more recently Mozambique. Uganda has opened it's doors to hunting, and Angola probably Sudan, Congo will follow suit.

It is widely considered that game outside protected areas in Kenya is doomed and famous areas such as the Northern territories, Kora (which the late George Adamson managed), Tsavo which I new as a kid are denuded now and I seriously doubt any income is derived from these areas.

Have you read 'End Of the Game' by Peter Beard?

Fairgame,

The comparison was that a non hunting country brings in more than ALL the hunting African countries. Ie, it contributes more to the local economy by it's very nature. Even if its contribution is only 0.06% of the total it is still more money!
I am also aware of the problems within Kenya and it's wildlife, i stated this right at the beginning. I was using it as a purely financial comparison.

My question was not based around conservation but the impression that has been put out there to me and others that hunting contributes HUGELY to the countries involved when it appears it doesn't. That is my only interest in the material i have posted.

Conservation and hunting as a conservation tool is a whole different ball game which i have discussed and learnt about elsewhere.

dinsdale,
I don't think anything but i do know that the percentage going into the community would have to be a lot less than 0.06% for photo safari be contributing less than hunting based on these figures.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jolouburn:
David Hulme,

Please don't make assumptions. I came here as an absolute anti but i still take the time to read the small print.
Now i'm somewhere sat on the fence but still learning, however believe you me i can put up a bloody good argument which SUPPORTS hunting and i have.
I can't answer any of your other questions as i don't know the answers, i just put this out there as a discussion piece, i'm making no assumptions from it.

Can you point out where I addressed you personally? You chucked this out there as a discussion piece as you say, so I am discussing, from a pro hunting perspective. I know there is no hope of the creators of this unsubstantiated drivel answering any of their critics, so I am just pointing out a few of the obvious blunders in case others miss them. I am sure you are not as well practiced as I am re the pro hunting argument - I spend a fair amount of time debating our viewpoint with members of non hunting groups which I am also a member of, for that specific reason.

Frostbit,
You can ask away but its not my research, try asking the people who wrote it. I only put it out there for discussion.
However most research indicates these figures that i have seen.

See above re 'try asking the people who wrote it.' They spend their lives spreading misinformation and brainwashing the less well informed, how do you expect us to get straight answers from habitual liars?

Which other research is it that you refer to? From one camp, no doubt.

FYI, when my own personal crusade on 'the other side' heated up a while ago, I posted accurate game count figures for particular hunting/conservation areas, ridiculed Derrek Joubert and other lying antis publicly and challenged anyone to dispute the facts I had posted, and/or to a public debate. Strangely enough, no takers. Why don't any of them take up my open invitation to tour a couple of the areas I have used as examples, so that we can all see the on the ground results of well managed hunting areas together? Because they know they are liars and cannot afford for their true agendas to become public knowledge lest their bambi budgets dry up.

quote:

My question was not based around conservation but the impression that has been put out there to me and others that hunting contributes HUGELY to the countries involved when it appears it doesn't. That is my only interest in the material i have posted.

I think it boils down to that we do our bit outside the protected areas. Our contribution is the protection of pristine environments and the game not just the Government coffers.

You maybe hinting that we as operators reap the rewards of this bountiful paradise and I assure you that if non consumptive tourism could develop these lands then why is it not happening?

In Zambia 80% of all tourism is conducted within hunting concessions. 80% of the communal responsibility, anti poaching, infrastructure etc is invested by the hunting fraternity.

No wonder the photographics have money to declare.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Frostbit,
You can ask away but its not my research, try asking the people who wrote it. I only put it out there for discussion.
However most research indicates these figures that i have seen.

Actually, echoing unfounded numbers repeated by unquestioning sources does not give the data credence.

The Jouberts frequently state there were 450,000 Lions on the African continent. How do they know?

That number though is repeated as if it's scientific gospel.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Don't know how long it is since you lot went on a photo safari but you're talking £6000 upwards.

I thank you for aknowledging my question regarding the numbers, but please stop BSing yourself(9,000usd upwards...)

There is no reason for the base price(even in the revered Keen-ya) to be anywhere near that high, and it is not:

quote:

Reservations

Kongoni Valley Game Offer (valid until 15 December 2011)

"All inclusive" offer - $499 per night, per person

This offer includes:

full accommodation with three meals,
horse safari,
car safari,
game walks, a walking safari on farm inhabited by zebras, giraffes, buffaloes, antelopes, leopards and dozens of other wild animals,
picnics in the bush,
mountain biking in the nearby Hell's Gate National Park,
boat trips on the nearby lake inhabited by hippos and hundreds of species of birds, including two species of flamingos,
soft drinks and alcoholic drinks (excluding strong, branded spirits and wine).

Single rooms are available at no extra cost.

Additional Information
For groups of 8 to 10 people a $100 discount per night, per person, regardless of the length of stay.

Weekly package includes an additional trip to the Masai Mara Reserve for two nights.

Discount includes the services offered in the $499 package and two nights at Mara Masai with a flight to and from Naivasha (with a typical safari in the largest Kenyan Nation Park, a visit to a Masai village and the possibility of close contact with the culture of the tribe).

Transfer from / to Nairobi by car, engine aircraft or helicopter on request (out of the package).

Additional attractions

helicopter safari only available to Kongoni guests (at extra charge),
golf course,
children under 14 pay half the price per night.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
If each photo safari client spent $5,000, it would take 168,000 clients to equal $840 million.

And if the average photo tourist stayed for only one week that would mean that Kenya has 24,000 photo tourist there per day YEAR ROUND including the rainy season.

I never realized their The Nairobi airport was so busy bringing in the 8oo plane loads a day.

Frostbit
Thank you for pointing out that these numbers are way, way off. I believe Jolouburn needs to crunch the numbers and decide if he thinks they are reasonable.

There is no was his numbers are anywhere near correct.

But I notice your made a mistake in your arithmetic, it would be 800 plane loads per week, not per day.(but I could be wrong...)

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

So all in all i guess i'm asking does hunting really contribute that much to the countries economy? Or is the only thing really benefiting the hunting oufitters etc pockets?

Anyone care to address the actual reason i started this thread?

Maybe this is not the right forum for this thread! I think a post on a photo forum would help you get the answers you are looking for, because you are asking the hunting community to say that hunting is not valuable. Well that is like winning an argument with your wife. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. Hunting bennifits the economy globally and saves wildlife and gives people jobs and yes it conserves. Just because you don't like it in the grand sceme of things really doesn't matter. I don't like photography and that doesn't matter. Stats are only as good as the guy making them up and usaully benifits the cause that they are linked to or they benifit the persons that are paying their bills.
enough said.

Ladies and gentlemen thats it for me.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

with all due respect you need to stop smoking Whacky Tabacco.

Your Figures are way off.Your reasoning ????


Im a hunting outfitter and didnt do economics at school.
But by your own admission the outfitters are doing well. Well we give more than half to the concessions, authorities, game owners.
we build and maintain luxury lodges- local labour.I have double the staff of my stock farming neighbour.
We support the local community shops for groceries.
The local authorities maintain their parks, game farms farms.Farmers keep and Introduce game
for hunting because WOW its ECONOMICALLY VIABLE..nice big word 4 u.

So WE SUPPORT THE LOCAL RURAL COMMUNITIES.
WHATS YOUR POINT AGAIN ??!!

the local photo safari companies next door to me have to sell their game every year to pay bills FACT.They bought out 7 properties to make the place and now hire half the staff the original 7 properties did.=JOB LOSES

your research is so way off its laughable.
Your pricing structure??? where did you get that figure?? are they coming down the Nile on the QE2 (luxurary ocean liner)

SHAMWARI private game reserve winner of Best game reserve in the world 2 yrs running $ 200- $250 a night at $ 300 for 7 nights thats $ 2100

good day stop wasting your time to justify a MYTH