SWARA is the magazine of the East African Wildlife Society

Thanks Mich. That's what I call an interesting article and I for one reckon CP raises some very good points .....albeit ones that'll upset a lot of people.

Thanks Mich for an article that is thought provoking,and mostly true.
As Mzee Shakari has stated, many will deny certain umpleasant truths.
Packer seems to have a fairly good grasp of the TZ hunting industry.

I didn't bother to count how many times this idiot used the word "profit". For those unfamiliar with American academics, it is filled with socialists. I wonder if the author has ever held a legitimate job----one where he isn't dependent upon taxpayers' money.

It troubles the author that apparently so little of hunting money makes its way to the average person in Africa. (That is,if we assume the veracity of his numbers. It has ben my experience that such numbers can change depending upon what the author wants.) The hunting community cannot be respnsible for corruption of African governments. Whether money comes from foreign aid or other sources, it is the nature of Africa that money is kept in the hands of its politicians (witness Mugabe).

I doubt very much that money generated in Tanzania from photosafaris filters down to the locals----of course, the author does not dwell on, or even mention this.

I've hunted quite a bit in Tanzania. For all its faults, I've largely seen game where there is hunting, but little elsewhere.

I would love to see American academia have to pay for itself. But that would be making a profit, wouldn't it?

John DL,
unfortunately CP hits the nail on the head regarding many issues of the tourist hunting issues. For the most part, large mammal populations ARE dropping throughout TZ. Reasons can be cited ad naseum. The problem is here with us, and unless something can be done, which I doubt, the hunting industry as well as the "non consumptive' wildlife tourism is going to face great "challenges" in the future.
The problem is actually population increase which is unsustainable as most parts of the world. Here in TZ, we will face these issues sooner than most. We have the most to lose, soonest.

For anybody squinting, and using Internet Explorer at least....

Hold down the "Ctrl" key and hit the "+" key on the keyboard to enlarge/zoom. You can pop the "+" key multiple times, and the "-" takes it back to normal size.

Still sort of fuzzy but bigger! Thanks for posting Mich!

Jangili,

There is no doubt that game populations are down. My first safari to TZ was in 1991. There is little question but what populations are down, especially for certain species. One's chance of getting a large buffalo was much greater then. Not only are populations down, but I think we have changed the biology of buffalo by shooting the largest males.

My problem with this article is that it is essentially what we call a "hit piece". If photographic safaris have been scrutinized so carefully, I have not seen it.

Safari companies in TZ must pay for the quota of game animals----whether they are shot or not. The government has an incentive to keep quotas high and this places the safari companies in the position of having to pass their costs on to the consumer.

I have no illusions that all is pure and wholesome in the TZ hunting industry. I do know that any business which cannot pass on its expenses to its customers will not be in business very long.

I reckon CP has hit the nail bang on the head. It might not be pleasant reading for hunters but I do reckon he's got it largely right......... although his suggested price increases would (quite understandably) make an awful lot of people squeal like stuck pigs.

John,

Whoever told you that "Safari companies in TZ must pay for the quota of game animals----whether they are shot or not" was mistaken.

Some companies pay for all the quota whether taken or not but it's not compulsory. I'm going from memory but think the normal compulsory percentage is in the region of 40%.

That said, game laws there will be changing soon and I don't yet know what the proposals are in that regard.

There is no doubt that Craig Packer is a knowledgeable man when it comes to ecology and wildlife populations in Africa. But for someone who has lived there since 1972, he seems to have very limited knowledge about the economics of sport hunting in Africa.

The data he quotes are very misleading, and distorts the true impact and benefit that sport hunting has on local economies in Africa. Let me give an example. He states that the Tanzania hunting blocks only generate about $10 million in GOVERNMENT revenue per year, or about 33 cents per hectre. And the GOVERNMENT only returns about $1.5 million of this to rural areas. He then states that about 6 million people live in the rural areas surrounding these hunting blocks, and that amounts to only 23 cents per person per year.

Wow, pretty grim data, right? (If his numbers are correct.) But he is only mentioning the money that the hunting blocks generate for the GOVERNMENT through trophy fees. (In other words, it's sort of like a tax.) He is ignoring all the money the hunting blocks bring in to the economy that goes to the safari operators and all the people they employ (through daily rates, their percentage of the trophy fees, money that goes to the camp managers, trackers, skinners, cooks, maids, handymen, etc.) Heck, $1.5 million is a pittance, but even if NONE of the trophy fee money was returned back to the rural areas, you'd still have all of that safari money (minus the government's percentage of the trophy fees) going to these people in these rural economies.

And again, the money paid for a safari gets spread among all these people and throughout the local economy. Unless a safari operator is bankrolling his income in a foriegn bank account, the money he makes is spent in his country.

The two biggest problems I see, which he mentioned, is the secrecy (political patronage?) in who the hunting blocks are allocated to (ex-politicians?), and the quotas not being properly set on wildlife in those blocks (code of silence), especially lions and leopards. Both of these problems are the fault of the government, not the hunting industry.

The wildlife in Africa is very resilient, and barring a major devastating drought, wildlife can be brought back to plentiful and sustainable numbers in a fairly short time, if proper wildlife management policies are set in place and adhered to. A lot of guys turn their noses up at the game ranch hunting industry in South Africa, but you have to admit that country has done a great job of managing it's wildlife populations, and has a healthy sport hunting industry. The only problem right now in this slow economy is that there are probably too many PHs chasing too few clients. The same management principles that SA uses can be applied to other countries without high fence operations, but without the fences, you must find a way to keep the livestock predation and poaching problem under control. It's complex, but it can be done.

Packer suggests that the hunting industry should be reorganized to generate 10 to 100 times as much GOVERNMENT revenue by drastically increasing the trophy fees to hunters. What good does it do to have the government collect 10 times as much trophy fee money, or even 100 times as much, when the government is being run inefficiently and can return whatever it wants, or doesn't want, to these rural economies? No, drastically increasing trophy fees is not the answer to this economic problem. Properly managing hunting blocks and their wildlife populations, and recognizing that a properly run and regulated hunting industry is part of the economic SOLUTION and not part of the PROBLEM, is the first step toward healthier wildlife populations and a healthier economy in these countries.

As I've stated in another post on another thread, I was a Business Economics major in college, but I'm certainly no economic genius. Craig Packer is undoubtedly a brilliant ecologist, but he seems to know diddly about the economics and inner workings of the hunting industry. He also puts too little emphasis on the fact that an inefficient or corrupt government, and its attitude toward the hunting industry, can make or break the hunting industry in that country.

Glen

Glen

The reason he only addresses the issue of Government income and not local population income is that for the purposes of the subject in hand, the government income is the only thing that matters and as I see it, the local population income is so small as to be irrelevent anyway.

But you'll excuse me for pointing out that your post is a good example of the point I raised in the first para of my previous post.

Steve,

On my last safari I tipped my tracker $200 for a 10 day safari. I also tipped the lodge owners, maids and cooks. Although not a lot of money, it is a far sight better than the 23 cents per year that Craig Packer states the government would return to each person living in the rural areas. The money I gave IS part of the local population income. So how can anyone say that the money I gave is so small as to be irrelevant, and the government income (23 cents a year per person) is the only thing that matters? For that tracker, I think he'd rather have my $200 over the 23 cents the government apparently gives him. I also assume that on the safaris before and after mine in that area, the hunters also tipped these people a similar amount.

Glen:

quote:

He states that the Tanzania hunting blocks only generate about $10 million in GOVERNMENT revenue per year, or about 33 cents per hectre. And the GOVERNMENT only returns about $1.5 million of this to rural areas. He then states that about 6 million people live in the rural areas surrounding these hunting blocks, and that amounts to only 23 cents per person per year.

If this figure includes revenue from trophy fees he is a wee way off the mark.
The 6 million people don't get a single red cent as whatever amount the Treasury decides to allocate will/should/might be spent on projects of benefit to that community, eg. schools, dispensaries, boreholes, etc. and is paid into the regional account.

"He also puts too little emphasis on the fact that an inefficient or corrupt government, and its attitude toward the hunting industry, can make or break the hunting industry in that country."

Possibly in his own interest to keep certain thoughts to himself

Glen,

I might not have made myself clear.

The money I was referring to was the money that came from the outfitters/leaseholders via the Govt.

The Govt don't care about the money YOU donate because THEY don't get any of it.

As we all know, Govts, esp African Govts don't give a flying fffffffig about the populace just as long as they can keep their snouts in the trough.

Steve,

OK, I misinterpreted what you said. Sorry, and you're right, the African governments generally don't give a rat's butt about their populace. I still stand by what I said in my long post above. Too many people over there, government officials included, underestimate the benefit that sport hunting brings to their economy. The industry just needs to be managed better.

Glen

Glen

I agree. The industry does need to be managed a lot better than it is and that's the one of the points CP is trying to make..... he also says that hunters need to reassess their expectations and basically get out of the supermarket shopping mentality AND accept considerable price hikes in some cases.

As I sais, I think he's quite right...... and as I also said, I think a lot of people will quite understandably squeal about that but nevertheless, as I see it, if we hope to see sport hunting continue into the next generation, we have to accept those unpalatable facts.

Hi all,

Please find John Jackson's (Conservation Force) thoughts on Craig Packer's article below.



The Packer Effect: Positive or Negative?

Craig’s latest article in SWARA provides interesting reading but I must disagree. It contains some basic truth, mostly half-truths, and worst suggestions.

TRUTH – “Many African countries have set aside large tracts of land as hunting concessions – far more land, in fact, than in their national parks.” Response: Correct. However you view it, that habitat and prey base are of immeasurable importance. If Craig tries hard enough perhaps he can convince the political authorities that they have made a mistake. Understand this: 7% of Tanzania is National Parks and 33% is hunting concessions (Game Reserves, Game Controlled Areas, Wildlife Management Areas, Hunting Blocks, etc.) It would not be advisable to convert one-third of the country to other uses and remain with only small islands of natural habitat.

HALF-TRUTH – “replacement male lions routinely kill all cubs” – Response: This is true in the heavily lion populated Serengeti when the graduate student K.W. conceived of the 6-year model (really 5-year). In large measure the hunting industry is gravitating towards implementation of the 6-year rule, even though experimental. Most importantly, Tanzania has made it the law with severe, career-ending penalties. Early on it was adopted by the hunting operators, then made law at the suggestion of the operators to insure compliance by all. The truth be told, Tanzania is the leader.

The industry did not ignore the 6-year theory from 2004-2008. The industry has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in research to develop scientific implementation technology and age verification. It took 12 lion specialists more than 2 of those 4 years to agree on a guidebook. Through no fault of the hunting industry it was published too late to be in circulation for the 3rd of those 4 years. The speed of the transition is uncommon even if not to Craig’s satisfaction. Though the change in practice is already record-breaking, it has been thwarted by Craig’s meddling in unrelated safari matters and his collusion with the most radical animal rightists. Craig misunderstood the Tanzania hunting industry’s zest for good lion science and took off on a Savannas Forever tangent on everything in the safari industry. The potential benefits of adoption of a 6-year rule as a better practice have not been rejected, but have been put in doubt by other meddling by Craig. He is neither an economist nor an expert on safari hunting.

TRUTH – The government receives more than 10 million dollars for operating funds from safari hunting. Response: This is grossly outdated figure (24.9 million dollars – Vernon Booth). The Contribution of Hunting Tourism; How Significant is This to National Economics?, July 2010) Meanwhile, national parks operate at a loss and the park gate fees are less than hunting fees.(Bonner 1993, N. Leader-Williams, 1996.) Imagine the conservation infrastructure without the hunting revenue.

HALF-TRUTH – Craig used CITES data. Response: CITES experts don’t agree . The WCMC figures are taken from the annual CITES country reports of trade. Appendix II species like lion parts can be recorded as one trophy, or each part a distinct trophy, or coded as non-trophy personal items, which makes doubtful the precise counting of exact number of individual lions exported. The trade is also when it occurs, not in the year of harvest, lag effect. For example Zambia and Botswana exports continued when hunting was closed. It was trade from earlier years.

HALF-TRUTH – Block data showed over hunting. Response: In 2010 the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and consultants went through the file data for 2005 through 2009. The annual take and the catch rate (ratio take/quota) for lion were both flat. It has been stable for the past five years, no doubt a positive “Packer Effect” on the industry. Craig certainly did not do it alone but has to be congratulated for that. Moreover, it is continuing despite the industry’s loss of confidence in Packer from other matters. The industry leaders in Tanzania are among the best in the world -- witness the stringent new law. The lion population is also the largest in Africa and remains so and robust. 18,015 Siege & Baldus: 202, 17,564 Ikanda & Packer, 2006: 16,800 Mesochina, et al June 2010.

HALF-TRUTH - Some Tanzania hunting operators are “eco-philanthropists.” Response: Thank goodness the American hunter’s conservation ethic has carried over and is at work in Africa. But there are non-Americans operating at exemplary levels as well - witness Robin Hurt.

HALF-TRUTH - Statistical analysis revealed hunters caused the declines and that countries that had hunted their lions most intensively suffered the “steepest subsequent declines in off take.” Response: Not so. Craig has been told by me and multiple lion and safari hunting experts that his analysis has too many flaws but he persists because the truth is not as important as his cause, I presume. The sharp decline in annual lion hunting take in Botswana was because the quota was slashed to one per concession, approximately 30 per year countrywide, not because of hunter catch rate decline. Hunter catch rate was 100% until the hunting was closed. There was never a hunter-caused decline in success and the lion killed in lion-livestock conflict generally exceeded the hunting quota, 30 on quota to 200-250 reported pad kills.

Ditto Zambia. The decline occurred when all hunting was closed and has followed the quota up and down, not vice-versa.

The sharp harvest decline in Tanzania corresponded with the September 11 terrorism that had a record impact on all tourism travel worldwide. That is well documented and reported. Effects of the Sept . 11 attacks on the Airline I. Dr. Paul Azrak (2002); The Economic Effects of 9/11. Gail Makinen, Report for Congress, CRS, 2002, Progress and Priorities 2002/03 World Travel & Tourism Council, (“The Events of September 11 last year shocked the world, and profoundly affected the global travel and Tourism Industry“) Estimated Impacts of September 11th on US Travel - U.S. Dept. of Transportation (2006). More than coincidentally, Namibia’s leopard and cheetah exports went down in 2003 and back up by 2005 just like Tanzania’s lion, (Hank Jenkins 2009). It also corresponded with license price increases for all animals that the industry advised against. Not surprisingly, and in contradiction to Craig’s speculation, the total take climbed right back up to where it was before the terrorist attack. If that sharp decline resulted from overharvest, it only took a year to recover and is ancient history. From 2005-2009 both the harvest numbers and catch rate have been stable. The earlier period following Sept 11th, 2001 was unique. With due respect to Craig, the current stable off take and catch rate is in large part due to the “Packer Effect,” I.e. his early constructive input and the industry’s positive response.

In Tanzania, 106 lions were taken in 1988, 204 lions in 1989, 210 lions in 1990, 165 lions in 1991, and 222 lions in 1992-1993. Those lion were 12 to 13 percent of the total Tanzania game fees. The harvest levels were thought to be sustainable and a “very important and relatively constant contribution….” according to Leader-Williams, Kayera & Overton, 1996 (Tourist Hunting in Tanzania), IUCN Occasional Paper No. 14. Today the lion take averages 170 per year and is stable (2005-2008.) The lion offtake since 2005 has averaged 1.2 percent per year. Mesochina, Mbangwa, Chardonnet, Moisha, Mtui, Drouet, Crosmary & Kissui, June, 2010. From 2000-2004 the average was 1.8 percent (Loveridge, Packer & Dutton, 2009.) Nowhere near 300 lion are taken per year as some may think Craig suggests. It is closer to half that number, far less than 2 percent of the population.

HALF-TRUTH – A lion hunting permit is only $7,500. Response: No. The license fee has more than doubled since 2000. Also, one must book a minimum 21-day safari by law to hunt lion or leopard, pay concession fees, etc. A lion hunt averages in excess of $100,000 in Tanzania and the 6-year rule is implemented by law so the chance of taking lion is lower. The optimal adventure hunt with little chance of success that Craig describes is already the status quo. A recent statistical review of the past five years documents a stable catch rate of 31 to 35% per annum yet lion has long been 12-13% of safari revenue. (Mesochina, et al. 2010)

PROHIBITIVE – The cost of safari should be no less than 10 times what they are and better if 100 times. Response: Well, the cost of a Tanzania safari can be something like $125,000. If multiplied by 10 as suggested it would be 1.25 million dollars or 100 times it would be 10.25 million dollars! There is not a soul that would pay it. The habitat would be converted to pasture land and agriculture, not just degraded - it would be converted. What could be worse! That would terminate most prey, most habitat and most lion dependent upon the two. That would be another “Packer Effect,” however that one a very negative one - I mean detrimental to wildlife conservation in general. Lion prices have already tripled in this decade and caused a documented sticker shock. Craig has always maintained that safari hunting is necessary to save the Africa lion, but this pricing seems to be to the contrary.

HALF-TRUTH – The industry “promised” to adopt the 6-year minimum age for lion. Response: No. Those of us who learned of the nose pigmentation aging theory welcomed it because of its potential as a better practice. It is not an axiom and it is not sound to make it a binding legal requirement prematurely. If I say more and Tanzania authorities learn of it, they may change their minds. Craig can undo his positive contribution.

HALF-TRUTH – Tanzania has been slow to act. Response: Tanzania deserve praise for its early adoption of the 6-year rule. Botswana loses more lion in a year to human-lion conflict than it harvested in nearly a decade on quota. The one population in Zimbabwe that may have been over harvested has robustly sprung back. Zambia has reduced quota and deep into research for better methodology (Paula White, pers. comm.)

TRUTH – Conclusion: One thing is certain: The Tanzania hunting community initially received the 6-year theory with open arms. Some one or more things happened to the trust necessary for the relationship and cooperation. It is like Craig’s article. To accept it you must believe what he represents to be true. If there is a loss of trust communication starts a spiral of failure. I too put the cause first so I continue to work with Craig when I can. We have just produced a new free pamphlet guide in time for the safari industry conventions and hunting operator and PH AGMs. It is attached and we welcome constructive criticism on how to field judge the age of a lion – not an easy task, particularly when you are fined and lose your PH license and your client paying 10.5 million dollars is embarrassed.

The leadership of the hunting community is working hard to save the African lion. They certainly are in an important position and have the most to lose if they’re not successful.

John J. Jackson, III
Chairman of Conservation Force

Very well said!

With friends like Packer in the hunting industry - who need enemies...

But I have to like his reference to the "eco-philanthropists".

He tells some true stories and I would like you all to ask yourselves what will happen to the industry if it is taken over totally by Friedkins and Tudor Jones types.

No-one decries the good work they do, but they will die and their sons may prefer to use the money elsewhere.

Leave African hunting in the hands of the true stakeholders is my opinion, notwithstanding Packer's very true points about politico's being involved at every turn.

The point is - gentlemen - capitalism. The hunting industry has to turn a profit for the broad majority of us. OR we will go and do something else and there will be no more hunting after a few years - unless you can afford to hunt with one of the "eco-philanthropists" - which 99.9% of you cannot.

Bwanamich is one of the most learned and informed posters on this forum. You should all take heed of his words. But - Bwanamich - spare a thought for the many many small, self-funded, genuine good guys around Africa (yes even TZ) who want to see the industry prevail. It cannot - without us African operators and PH's, it will not prevail...

JT,

You are absolutely right.

Steve,

I know you are a bit of a Packer fan, what are your thoughts on John Jackson's comments?

John,
I agree totally with what you say. The critical thing is that the industry is self-regulating and self-sustainable. A minimum of "Ethics" to ensure sustainability is necessary, even if some of these "ethics" ar ein the form of stringent regulations. There is too much of a "wild West" attitude in some facets of th industry here in Africa. This is just my opinion, of course.

Thank you John Jackson, for your reply/rebuttal of what Craig Packer said! Finally, someone is saying some things that make perfect sense.

Packer's suggestion that Tanzania's trophy fees be increased 10 to 100 fold is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever read. What he's suggesting is that hunting for lion and leopard should be an activity reserved only for multi-millionaires and royalty. Sorry, but that is not what hunting is about. If that were the case, then why don't we sell non-resident sheep and Alaska brown bear hunts here in the States for between $150,000 and $1,500,000?

Also, his idea of "adventure hunts", where the expected success rate on lion would be no more than 5 to 10% is equally absurd. How many guys would book a hunt like that, and then pay a million dollar trophy fee if they got lucky? This also means that some outfitters would go 2 years or more without a client shooting a lion.

For a guy who states that safari hunting is necessary to save the African lion, he's sure coming up with some crazy ideas which would, in effect, bring an end to lion hunting.

for sure the trophy photo albums showing year by year success would be a lot smaller, come convention time. and just how many hunters would even the bigger TZ outfitters book if lion hunts were "only $1.25 million" much less $12.5 mill. everyone knows that the people who are the ORIGINAL TITLE HOLDERS on Tz.hunting concessions are either ex-politicians, current politicians, their relatives or cronies- and they are the ones who keep the majority of the money flowing in from hunting in their pockets. example- the "Moki Abdulla" family has concession XYZ in the Selous for the last 30 years and pays the government $5000/yr fees. they in turn sublease it to BWANABOB for $50,000. VEEEERY few leaseholders are people with longstanding histories as PH/OUTFITTERS. these guys are forced to sublease from politicians/etc. bear in mind i said original title holders. just because an outfitter has leased any area for 25 years, if some family in Dar holds title, then the outfitter ultimately is at his mercy. when TZ jacked up fees a few years ago, the public outcry was tremendous and the increase was reduced. just think what a 10 or 100 fold increase would do. one thing for sure, the big game outfitters in Zim, Zambia, and Mozambique must be ecstatic!!

Jdollar,

I think I know what you are trying to say BUT, there are quite a number of outfitters who hold "title" (Technically they are ALL leases)to the concessions they operate in and many of these are reputable and majority owned by foreign shareholders. Without doing an in depth search, I would say these probably hold "title" to close to half of the concessions if not slightly more.

Just thought I would correct this point.