There's certainly some good arguments for allowing limited hunting in some parts of any park, not least amongst them presented by Ron Thomson and there are some parks such as the Controlled Hunting Area in Mzuze RSA where it has been proven to work very successfully for many years.

If allowed, the money gained could be used to pay for such things as better equipment (esp boreholes & fences etc) anti poaching, better kit for GD staff, research & improved facilities etc.

That said, I can understand why many people might not like the idea at first consideration at the very least.

quote:

Originally posted by martin pieters:
Jan , I have been operating for 21 years as a PH in Zimbabwe and I have spent almost my entire life ( when not at boarding school )in national parks ( Hwange mainly ) and hunting camps.
I have witnessed many, many times reactions by elephant in particular when confronted by humans, on the park side they are docile, to the point of being tame ( tolerant is a better word ), the very same elephant cross the border and they KNOW where they are!!
Their reactions towards people change and they become a completely different beast.
So yes, they are hunted outside the park, that is why there are buffer areas,campfire forestry, private land and safari areas. I personally conduct a lot of hunts on the boundary of Hwange and enjoy it immensely.

That is where hunting should take place, NOT inside a park, it is absolute bullshit and it is only happening because of where Zimbabwe is at the moment.

The system has issues right now due to financial constraints ( call it whatever you want ) and we as custodians should not under any circumstances abuse our role.

Martin

Point taken.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by martin pieters:
Love that logic ,parks need money , country needs money , " let's rape and pillage the resources regardless"!!!
Seriously !!

Truth be told it has nothing to do with raising money for National Parks or the national treasury, it has to do with corrupt bureaucrats using their positions to feather their own beds financially. Every one of Martin's posts above have been 100% spot on. If you are engaged in commercial hunting inside a national park in Zim, regardless of what the law says or some form signed by some corrupt bureaucrat says, you are acting in an unethical, immoral manner completely antithetical to the conservation interests hunters should support.

quote:

If you are engaged in commercial hunting inside a national park in Zim, regardless of what the law says or some form signed by some corrupt bureaucrat says, you are acting in an unethical, immoral manner completely antithetical to the conservation interests hunters should support.

Horse manure. If there is a legitimate reason to kill an elephant, then using that elephant's death to raise money for the Park or conservation efforts would be EXACTLY in the conservation interests hunters should support. The raffle of the rhino at DSC is an example of such efforts.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

If you are engaged in commercial hunting inside a national park in Zim, regardless of what the law says or some form signed by some corrupt bureaucrat says, you are acting in an unethical, immoral manner completely antithetical to the conservation interests hunters should support.

Horse manure. If there is a legitimate reason to kill an elephant, then using that elephant's death to raise money for the Park or conservation efforts would be EXACTLY in the conservation interests hunters should support. The raffle of the rhino at DSC is an example of such efforts.

Bull poop. If you are so naive as to believe that the money from commercial hunting in the national parks in Zim is being plowed back into conservation and national parks, you need to renounce your Texas citizenship. Zim ain't Namibia if you hadn't already guessed.

More horse manure. If you are so dumb as to believe that shooting an elephant for ZERO, as is the situation Martin Pieters mentioned above is BETTER than letting someone be guided and shooting it for money, then you need to renounce your capitalist credentials because you can't add.

Perhaps if safari hunting was a part of Parks wildlife management this situation would be different? They can co-exist. IMO it sounds like the days of locking-up animals inside Nat Parks and hoping for the best may be in the past.

Hunting can and does co-exist within Nat Parks, elsewhere in the world.

If we allow hunting in the parks, I think we will be heading down a very slippery slope.

National parks have always offered protection to animals inside them, and I think that is how it should be.

Trouble is, this policy must be adhered to religiously, or there is no point in having it.

I also think it is wrong to cull animals with the park.

If animals numbers need to be thinned out, offer hunts outside the park. With the money gotten from this going directly to support the park.

Saeed

I see what you're getting at but that only works if the parks can support themselves & many can't do that now.

It's been long acknowledged that hunting pays for conservation & the SGR is a very good example of that.

Limited hunting in controlled hunting areas such as occurs in Mkuze park RSA is another good example & it proves it works there as well.

Surely it's better to have parks with controlled hunting areas than to have no parks at all?

As for not culling in the parks: One of the worst things that ever happened in the KNP was when they stopped culling the elephants there....... the place is a shadow of what it was 25 years ago.

Personally, I reckon each park should be taken on a case by case basis & what's right for one park may not be right for another.

Guys,
Martin Pieters has LIVED (and is living) the life some of you are trying to tell him (and Mike Jines who is pretty well versed in the subject as well) how to live...and pulling the ideas out of your...

The truth is that the system of National Parks (with out hunting) surrounded by buffer zones of hunting blocks has and can continue to serve as "the model" for wildlife conservation.

Trying to spread hunting into the parks is not the answer as the non-hunting park serves its purpose as sanctuary, seed stock, and a place for the non hunting crowd to view wildlife which is very important to have as well.

When ele actually need culling in parks...taking a client in an shooting one here and there does not help. Whole family units have to be taken out swiftly by teams who don't let one get away. This is where apprentice PH's, guides, and rangers learn.

What sportsman need to focus on is supporting conservation based consumptive wildlife management plans in the hunting blocks that surround the parks.

Truth be know now is many of these have been poached out due to lack of "governmental oversight and negligence" or worse with "governmental encouragement"...the same gvt some of y'all want to throw the reins to for park hunting.

The truth be known...hunting is the goose that laid the golden egg for Zim but they are so corrupt...they don't reinvest into the park system and leave them to dangle and fin for themselves by selling shady hunts...which by the way are only legal through a loop-hole in the law.

If the government did not already skim the top 75% of hunting revenue for themselves...this would already be self-sustaining and well managed by people like Martin Pieters and Pete Barnard both of whom have lived their entire lives with the system and trying to make it better.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
More horse manure. If you are so dumb as to believe that shooting an elephant for ZERO, as is the situation Martin Pieters mentioned above is BETTER than letting someone be guided and shooting it for money, then you need to renounce your capitalist credentials because you can't add.

I will confess to being relatively dumb (with certain others being relatively dumber) when it comes to what is going on on the ground in Zim in the national parks with commercial hunting, but folks like Martin and Pete are not. I wonder what makes you smarter than the people that live there, hunt there, were raised there, make their livings there and deal with national parks everyday when they say commercial hunting in their national parks is an abuse? Commercial hunting in the national parks in Zim is in fact an abuse, it is being done out of greed not out of some grandiose view of conservation.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
More horse manure. If you are so dumb as to believe that shooting an elephant for ZERO, as is the situation Martin Pieters mentioned above is BETTER than letting someone be guided and shooting it for money, then you need to renounce your capitalist credentials because you can't add.

I will confess to being relatively dumb (with certain others being relatively dumber) when it comes to what is going on on the ground in Zim in the national parks with commercial hunting, but folks like Martin and Pete are not. I wonder what makes you smarter than the people that live there, hunt there, were raised there, make their livings there and deal with national parks everyday when they say commercial hunting in their national parks is an abuse? Commercial hunting in the national parks in Zim is in fact an abuse, it is being done out of greed not out of some grandiose view of conservation.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
If we allow hunting in the parks, I think we will be heading down a very slippery slope.

National parks have always offered protection to animals inside them, and I think that is how it should be.

Trouble is, this policy must be adhered to religiously, or there is no point in having it.

I also think it is wrong to cull animals with the park.

If animals numbers need to be thinned out, offer hunts outside the park. With the money gotten from this going directly to support the park.

Protection? Protection from what? The nasty hunters??

What you are suggesting is that even well-managed safari hunting WILL or MUST have a negative effect on the wildlife populations inside the (any) National Park. Which is exactly what the antis say about the safari hunting areas, GMA's, concessions, etc.

Do you think the safari industry cannot be trusted inside National Parks?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
If we allow hunting in the parks, I think we will be heading down a very slippery slope.

National parks have always offered protection to animals inside them, and I think that is how it should be.

Trouble is, this policy must be adhered to religiously, or there is no point in having it.

I also think it is wrong to cull animals with the park.

If animals numbers need to be thinned out, offer hunts outside the park. With the money gotten from this going directly to support the park.

Protection? Protection from what? The nasty hunters??

What you are suggesting is that even well-managed safari hunting WILL or MUST have a negative effect on the wildlife populations inside the (any) National Park. Which is exactly what the antis say about the safari hunting areas, GMA's, concessions, etc.

Do you think the safari industry cannot be trusted inside National Parks?

In Zim, given current circumstances, I think the answer to your last question is an unequivocal yes, the industry cannot be trusted in the national parks. You need to look no further than the South African outfitters that are raping the parks shooting 60-70+ pound elephants as "cull elephants" or "ration elephants". What may work in other countries, or even Zim in another time and place, may be different, but today the answer in Zim is a loud yes.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
If we allow hunting in the parks, I think we will be heading down a very slippery slope.

National parks have always offered protection to animals inside them, and I think that is how it should be.

Trouble is, this policy must be adhered to religiously, or there is no point in having it.

I also think it is wrong to cull animals with the park.

If animals numbers need to be thinned out, offer hunts outside the park. With the money gotten from this going directly to support the park.

Protection? Protection from what? The nasty hunters??

What you are suggesting is that even well-managed safari hunting WILL or MUST have a negative effect on the wildlife populations inside the (any) National Park. Which is exactly what the antis say about the safari hunting areas, GMA's, concessions, etc.

Do you think the safari industry cannot be trusted inside National Parks?

In Zim, given current circumstances, I think the answer to your last question is an unequivocal yes, the industry cannot be trusted in the national parks. You need to look no further than the South African outfitters that are raping the parks shooting 60-70+ pound elephants as "cull elephants" or "ration elephants". What may work in other countries, or even Zim in another time and place, may be different, but today the answer in Zim is a loud yes.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Saeed

I see what you're getting at but that only works if the parks can support themselves & many can't do that now.

It's been long acknowledged that hunting pays for conservation & the SGR is a very good example of that.

Limited hunting in controlled hunting areas such as occurs in Mkuze park RSA is another good example & it proves it works there as well.

Surely it's better to have parks with controlled hunting areas than to have no parks at all?

As for not culling in the parks: One of the worst things that ever happened in the KNP was when they stopped culling the elephants there....... the place is a shadow of what it was 25 years ago.

Personally, I reckon each park should be taken on a case by case basis & what's right for one park may not be right for another.

Shakiri, what is SGR?

Thanks,

JPK

Selous Game Reserve

I can almost hear you saying:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Protection? Protection from what? The nasty hunters??

What you are suggesting is that even well-managed safari hunting WILL or MUST have a negative effect on the wildlife populations inside the (any) National Park. Which is exactly what the antis say about the safari hunting areas, GMA's, concessions, etc.

Do you think the safari industry cannot be trusted inside National Parks?

In Zim, given current circumstances, I think the answer to your last question is an unequivocal yes, the industry cannot be trusted in the national parks. You need to look no further than the South African outfitters that are raping the parks shooting 60-70+ pound elephants as "cull elephants" or "ration elephants". What may work in other countries, or even Zim in another time and place, may be different, but today the answer in Zim is a loud yes.

Yeah, I was speaking/questioning more generally - beyond Zim.

If what you are saying is true about Zim, that the industry cannot be trusted - and I have no reason to disagree.... then shouldnt the safari industry and hunters be locked-out of the govt concession areas too? Are they not conservation zones as well?

No. The concession areas are controlled by operators under long term leases. Most do a good job of sticking to quotas, working on anti-poaching, improving the areas to support sustainable offtake, etc. Why? Because their livelihood depends on the long term viability of the areas and they are concerned about conservation. Not so with some in the national parks and ministries. When you have some corrupt bureaucrat that is only concerned about how much money he can get in a backhander during some finite time he or she is in a position of authority and an outfitter from another country that is there to just turn a quick buck, it is a recipe for disaster for game in the national parks. Far from being a problem, the Zimbos that control concession areas may be the last great hope for saving Zim's wildlife. My $0.02.

Matt,
The problem with the Safari Industry in broad terms world wide is that there are "Real Good Operators" and there are the crooks. Sometimes sorting the wheat from the chaff is the key. I chimed in to say that Mart & Pete are 2 of the "Real Good Conservation-Minded Operators." We, instead of hindering them, should be supporting them. Let them fix it from the inside. The term "Safari Industry" I have learned the hard way over the lion debacle...is a VERY broad-brush. And, it paints the good with the bad sometimes.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
No. The concession areas are controlled by operators under long term leases. Most do a good job of sticking to quotas, working on anti-poaching, improving the areas to support sustainable offtake, etc. Why? Because their livelihood depends on the long term viability of the areas and they are concerned about conservation. Not so with some in the national parks and ministries. When you have some corrupt bureaucrat that is only concerned about how much money he can get in a backhander during some finite time he or she is in a position of authority and an outfitter from another country that is there to just turn a quick buck, it is a recipe for disaster for game in the national parks. Far from being a problem, the Zimbos that control concession areas may be the last great hope for saving Zim's wildlife. My $0.02.

+1 again.

From Martin Pieters:

quote:

They have always shot elephant in Hwange just not on a commercial scale !
Previously the shooting was conducted by either national parks rangers for training and for rations or by an experienced culling team! The method of population control by authorities is sanctioned and above board and is conducted after scientific research.

I'm still waiting for one of you rocket scientists to explain to me why a dead elephant for no money, no guide fees, etc is better for the Parks, Zim, the economy, potential guides, etc than the same dead elephant for a fee? Per Martin Pieters above, they kill them, so why not kill them for fees?

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
From Martin Pieters:

quote:

They have always shot elephant in Hwange just not on a commercial scale !
Previously the shooting was conducted by either national parks rangers for training and for rations or by an experienced culling team! The method of population control by authorities is sanctioned and above board and is conducted after scientific research.

I'm still waiting for one of you rocket scientists to explain to me why a dead elephant for no money, no guide fees, etc is better for the Parks, Zim, the economy, potential guides, etc than the same dead elephant for a fee? Per Martin Pieters above, they kill them, so why not kill them for fees?

It's easy. All of the money goes in a crooks pocket in Zim and none back to Parks.

First of all, you can't prove that, it is purely supposition on your part because you don't know how the "hunts" could be structured. Second of all, MUCH of the money hunters pay to hunt in Zim goes to the regime's "crooks", so you better quit hunting there if that is your concern. Third, even if the trophy fees go to "crooks", then the fees to guide, etc don't, just like in hunting in other parts of Zim. Fourth, attitudes like this "the park game is inviolate" are exactly the reason that Kruger is rapidly becoming an eco-desert thanks to the non-culling of elephants there. Fifth, a dead elephant for a fee is worth more to the economy of Zim, REGARDLESS OF WHO GETS THE MONEY, than the same dead elephant for zero.

I'm done. What I think, and for that matter, what anyone on this thread thinks won't have much, if any impact, on events on the ground in Zim.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Selous Game Reserve

I can almost hear you saying:

Ha! I think you did hear it.

Worse, I knew what it stood for, and might have recognized it, but the thread had me thinking SA or maybe Zim or Botswana with the references to KNP and the Zim issue.

Thanks,

JPK

Ok, just to pipe in.
How many NP's in US allow hunting inside?
I agree with Martin, Peter, Mike , Lane and etc.

Gatogordo,,you might have point but so do people that want to privatize National forests here because they think it could be managed better.
Good luck in that insanity

quote:

I'm still waiting for one of you rocket scientists to explain to me why a dead elephant for no money, no guide fees, etc is better for the Parks, Zim, the economy, potential guides, etc than the same dead elephant for a fee? Per Martin Pieters above, they kill them, so why not kill them for fees?

Not sure how National Parks in America are managed but those in Africa fall into the category of Sanctuaries, these being reserved areas in which all flora and fauna are fully protected from hunting or molestation.

So strict are the rules, that you may not enter a National Park with a firearm or domestic animal (pet)on board your vehicle.

If one or more elephants need to be culled for whatever reason, the exercise will be carried out in an appropriate manner by the Park Rangers without the need to call upon the services of a PH, trackers, not to mention some fact cat hunter who wants to shoot an elephant at a convenient price.

National Parks are anyhow subsidized by the income they generate through tourism and any shortfall would quite likely be covered from contributions generated by the hunting industry - Parks is just a departmental branch of the wildlife department.

Whilst I certainly don't agree with sport hunters being allowed to take part in culls of elephant cows & calves, I don't have a problem with bulls under the right circumstances.

Fujo

Hope you don't mind me correcting you slightly there my friend. Some parks such as Mkuze in KZN do allow hunting in certain parts of the park (and have done for many years) and for them at least, it works very well indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
Ok, just to pipe in.
How many NP's in US allow hunting inside?
I agree with Martin, Peter, Mike , Lane and etc.

Gatogordo,,you might have point but so do people that want to privatize National forests here because they think it could be managed better.
Good luck in that insanity

There is a huge difference between a National Park and a National Forest, and yes the National Forests would be much better managed if they were privatized---the federal government shouldn't be in the land business anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
No. The concession areas are controlled by operators under long term leases. Most do a good job of sticking to quotas, working on anti-poaching, improving the areas to support sustainable offtake, etc. Why? Because their livelihood depends on the long term viability of the areas and they are concerned about conservation. Not so with some in the national parks and ministries. When you have some corrupt bureaucrat that is only concerned about how much money he can get in a backhander during some finite time he or she is in a position of authority and an outfitter from another country that is there to just turn a quick buck, it is a recipe for disaster for game in the national parks. Far from being a problem, the Zimbos that control concession areas may be the last great hope for saving Zim's wildlife. My $0.02.

Dont those beaurocratic backhanders happen in the concssions as well? Perhaps in other countries?

So why couldn't the same good principles be applied to Zim Nat Parks - for managed off-take? IMO - locking-up wildlife in 'reserves' is old-school thinking and does not guarantee protection from poachers. Once again I am talking broadly now.

In my local perspective. Right now we are fighting for recreation hunting access to more than 100 Nat Park reserves in one of the provinces (NSW) - not to hunt native species of course but to assist with control of introduced game animals and pests. The 'issues' mentioned above are the same one the anti's use to prevent this from happening.. corruption, cant trust hunters to do what they say, culling should be left to the 'professionals'. In contrast - in the state next door (Victoria) there is a massive national park that has had recreational hunting access to hunt sambar deer since the 70's... although introduced these animals are treated as a public resource - for sustainable use. There are very, very few issues there with hunting in that Park - it is just a part of the Nat Parks management. There are some 20,000 licenced deer hunters in that state.

SO - we are fighting these fights right now - all over the world - so it hurts my eyes when I read hunters saying that other hunters cannot be trusted within conservation areas, even with strict checks and balances . Very sad really.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

I'm still waiting for one of you rocket scientists to explain to me why a dead elephant for no money, no guide fees, etc is better for the Parks, Zim, the economy, potential guides, etc than the same dead elephant for a fee? Per Martin Pieters above, they kill them, so why not kill them for fees?

Not sure how National Parks in America are managed but those in Africa fall into the category of Sanctuaries, these being reserved areas in which all flora and fauna are fully protected from hunting or molestation.

So strict are the rules, that you may not enter a National Park with a firearm or domestic animal (pet)on board your vehicle.

If one or more elephants need to be culled for whatever reason, the exercise will be carried out in an appropriate manner by the Park Rangers without the need to call upon the services of a PH, trackers, not to mention some fact cat hunter who wants to shoot an elephant at a convenient price.

National Parks are anyhow subsidized by the income they generate through tourism and any shortfall would quite likely be covered from contributions generated by the hunting industry - Parks is just a departmental branch of the wildlife department.

A couple of points, every park or country has the restrictions you note, for example, I have been through a couple of Aim parks loaded up with firearms, along with every Toyota transiting. And then there are the guides or PH's acting as guides, who are armed, and required to be armed, when they are in the parks.

On the sanctuary issue, it just isn't true. When there is culling, mercy or public safety killing going on, a park is anything but a sanctuary, when thousands of tourist traverse daily, or stay within the confines it is anything but a sanctuary. In the end many parks are nothing but really large zoos. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they need to be managed.

Limiting hunting to buffer areas surrounding the parks hasn't worked to reduce elephant populations adequately. Culling needs to be done in the parks. Might as well earn some revenue from it, or alternatively, make it the training grounds for the game rangers and scouts and appy PH. But at least serve some beneficial purpose.

BTW, the rangers use trackers.

Also, and from what I have been told many times the rangers will be accompanied by a PH teaching them how not to get killed, which is a good thing, eh?

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
First of all, you can't prove that, it is purely supposition on your part because you don't know how the "hunts" could be structured. Second of all, MUCH of the money hunters pay to hunt in Zim goes to the regime's "crooks", so you better quit hunting there if that is your concern. Third, even if the trophy fees go to "crooks", then the fees to guide, etc don't, just like in hunting in other parts of Zim. Fourth, attitudes like this "the park game is inviolate" are exactly the reason that Kruger is rapidly becoming an eco-desert thanks to the non-culling of elephants there. Fifth, a dead elephant for a fee is worth more to the economy of Zim, REGARDLESS OF WHO GETS THE MONEY, than the same dead elephant for zero.

I'm done. What I think, and for that matter, what anyone on this thread thinks won't have much, if any impact, on events on the ground in Zim.

Actually...I can.

And...people like Mart and Pete at least have a chance to change things on the ground with support from us.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
No. The concession areas are controlled by operators under long term leases. Most do a good job of sticking to quotas, working on anti-poaching, improving the areas to support sustainable offtake, etc. Why? Because their livelihood depends on the long term viability of the areas and they are concerned about conservation. Not so with some in the national parks and ministries. When you have some corrupt bureaucrat that is only concerned about how much money he can get in a backhander during some finite time he or she is in a position of authority and an outfitter from another country that is there to just turn a quick buck, it is a recipe for disaster for game in the national parks. Far from being a problem, the Zimbos that control concession areas may be the last great hope for saving Zim's wildlife. My $0.02.

Dont those beaurocratic backhanders happen in the concssions as well? Perhaps in other countries?

So why couldn't the same good principles be applied to Zim Nat Parks - for managed off-take? IMO - locking-up wildlife in 'reserves' is old-school thinking and does not guarantee protection from poachers. Once again I am talking broadly now.

In my local perspective. Right now we are fighting for recreation hunting access to more than 100 Nat Park reserves in one of the provinces (NSW) - not to hunt native species of course but to assist with control of introduced game animals and pests. The 'issues' mentioned above are the same one the anti's use to prevent this from happening.. corruption, cant trust hunters to do what they say, culling should be left to the 'professionals'. In contrast - in the state next door (Victoria) there is a massive national park that has had recreational hunting access to hunt sambar deer since the 70's... although introduced these animals are treated as a public resource - for sustainable use. There are very, very few issues there with hunting in that Park - it is just a part of the Nat Parks management. There are some 20,000 licenced deer hunters in that state.

SO - we are fighting these fights right now - all over the world - so it hurts my eyes when I read hunters saying that other hunters cannot be trusted within conservation areas, even with strict checks and balances . Very sad really.

There is NO comparison with what can be done with hunting in Australia vs. Africa.

The level of poaching and the level of corruption are on opposite extremes of the spectrum.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

There is NO comparison with what can be done with hunting in Australia vs. Africa.

The level of poaching and the level of corruption are on opposite extremes of the spectrum.

Fine - but that still doesn't answer my question as to what the practical differences are between effectively locked-up (to hunting) National Parks and govt concessions/GMA's/whatever? They both have conservation value - hunters are trusted on one but not the other... why is that?

Surely you are not so obtuse as to not recognize the distinction between commercial hunting in a national park and commercial hunting in a hunting concession? Surely.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Surely you are not so obtuse as to not recognize the distinction between commercial hunting in a national park and commercial hunting in a hunting concession? Surely.

OK - you tell me what the practical difference is between using safari hunting as a management tool inside a NP and outside it in a GMA? So long as the appropriate animals are taken and funds generated are used correctly - there should be no difference.

I am at a loss here. I wanted some answers on a couple of things, but this has now gone into a very interesting new direction.

Marty, as joint custodians (the hunting industry and Parks) of the wild life in your country, is it also not your role to support the control of the Elephant populations INSIDE your parks so that the numbers there are sustainable for the ENVIRONMENT and eco system as whole? With your current economic climate, is it not important for Parks to generate an income out of ration hunts?

I am not talking about the outfitters not adhering to the rules, and of course the corruption that goes hand in hand with this. Why do you guys not get involved in a organised manner, and get this CONTROLLED at least a bit more, and establish a vested interest in this?

What I have seen off Hwange is that too many Elephants are destroying the habitat there. Not unlike our Kruger National park. Look at the area between Woodlans and the forestry area bordering Matetsi. Look at some places in Botswana, The Tuli. I have not been there since 2007, but it was already bad then.

It is all good and well to say that the hunting industry is controlling the numbers in hunting blocks adjacent to the parks, but we all know that that the moment you practise sustained hunting of the Ellies in these areas, they go nocturnal for their quest to get water outside the park (their only reason for venturing into these "danger" zones in the dry months?)

Corruption, emotion and the political issues in your country aside, how is it "morally wrong" for us as hunters to control these hunts, and generate AN income from it.

Get me 100% right. I am not trying to even imply that it is ok what some SA and Zim outfitters do by shooting Elephants in the Hwange park. I am trying to establish my own conviction on the moral, and ethic issues of shooting (if it is not a hunt) any animal in any park, where that animal species needs to be controlled, FOR a FEE. It is better than shooting it for nothing?

I would like to hear your answer on this. I am not saying right or wrong, I would like to hear what the alternative is.......

Because as it stands now it looks as if you guys are dead said against it out of principal to curb corruption and maybe the illegal trade in Ivory out of your country? Or is it really about the principal?

In our country, controlled hunting (for money) is done in EVERY National Park, EXCEPT Kruger and central ADDO. And I believe this is wrong. The conservation ethos behind these hunts are that we are managing our mandate as custodians of the wild to ensure the survival of the whole eco system, not only certain species because we like them or because they have become used to people?

Any case, it will be interesting to hear what your thoughts are on this my friend.

Out of interest, the hunter backed out of the hunt, and we are trying to see if we can get his (small) deposit back.

I think we are going to incorporate his loss off that deposit into our offer to him, just to make the "hit" a bit lighter. Thanks for all the great info and support on this.

Cheers,

quote:

Originally posted by infinito:
In our country, controlled hunting (for money) is done in EVERY National Park, EXCEPT Kruger and central ADDO. And I believe this is wrong. The conservation ethos behind these hunts are that we are managing our mandate as custodians of the wild to ensure the survival of the whole eco system, not only certain species because we like them or because they have become used to people?

Yes I learned this a few years ago and I was surprised and pleased also that this is happening. Hopefully the money generated actually helps to protect animals like the rhino.

Perhaps that is the way Kruger will go in the future too - controlled hunting at certain times?

I would second Mike here on all of Martin's comments. The truth is that the maximum limit of a 40 pounder being shot is often ignored, a little money in the rangers pocket and a 60 pounder goes down. Re bulls crossing the boundary, they know what it's all about ,once they cross they change totally. The same way the crop raiders are, they know safe and unsafe zones.