After reading Will's book, "Hunting Africa's Dangerous Game" and going back and rereading Saeed's report on his recent hunt, it appears to me anyway that poaching in Africa is the rule rather than the exception.

And I wondered how much this costs the African economy. Not just in trophy fees but in the overall effect on the economy.

Even for a plains game hunt, the hunter is going to spend about $10,000 US, most of which will makes its way back into the local economy. For Dangerous game, that expense can be upwards of $50,000 US.

Then I look at the post about Kenya maintaining its bar on hunting. The money received from the anti's in all liklihood does not get distributed back into the local economy. And thinking like a poacher for a minute, what they are doing to "protect" the animals plays directly into the poacher's hands.

"Let's put up a fence, or confine the game into a protected area". Wow. Now I don't have to walk as far to poach, nor do I have to lay out snares in as many places. And forget about the argument that the government can more effectively police a smaller area. These are huge areas, and sad to say but corruption probably leads to a lot of looking the other way or being in the wrong place at the right time.

If there were some figures on the number and species of animals poached every year, it would probably present a pretty compelling economic impact.

Good evaluation. I think that you are right about where the real money is going from the antis. It is not going to the people, that's for sure.

Kenya? Protect animals from poaching? Another bunch of suckers got roped into the Kenyan Corruption Machine. And the animals suffer, and suffer, and suffer...

I would really be interested to see how much of the money you guys pay to your safari operators is spend by them in the country you hunt and what is coming to the communities living close to the hunting areas. These people are not stupid, they know about the high charges from which they have no benefit at all. So what is left is poaching only. It's a society problem and you should not underestimate the problems the local people have. Buy the way, I've hunted 2 years in Tanzania as a resident hunter and know for instance the owner of Usangu hunters very well, as I hunted with his father in law.

Warthog,
Welcome to AR.

So as a resident hunter, what did you do for the communities you hunted in?

We build them new telephone networks, which will not feed them but at least it's a kind of development which is not harmful.

Sometimes it is worth looking at the other's point of view.

Lets look at this scenario.

If the USA was like Africa, you lived in an area with lots of whitetail deer, brown bear which sometimes killed people from your town or even family, over the hills were big herds of bison. Moose would come into your vegetable garden or fruit orchard and eat most of it away.

You rarely eat meat.

Then the law said, you aren't permitted to kill any of the local wildlife. They are reserved for rich foreignors. Even if you were permitted to kill some, the cost would be about 15 or more years wages or salary. If there are areas to hunt, they are still expensive, far away and perhaps devoid of game. Yet you have game in your front garden most days.

Would you say or do, "Stuff the law, I'm going to sneak into the forest and kill a deer for meat for my family"?

I certainly would.

***

Not saying the effect of poaching is right or a good result, but it is understandable from a local's point of view.

The only way to reduce the incidence of poaching is to provide the locals with something in exchange, eg some of the meat is distributed to local people, employment in the hunting industry, some of the money from hunting comes to the locals, compensation for destroyed crops, lost lives, flattened huts.

Fines or jail for poachers caught. At the moment someone caught poaching in Zim gets a fine often less than the meat they are caught with, and less than the cost of the fuel for the outfitter taking them to the lock-up.

Probably a pipedream.

John - I certainly understand and am sympathetic to "subsistence poaching". People should be allowed to feed themselves, but do so like a hunting culture, that recognizes the need to preserve enough animals for breeding down the road. The poaching today is cruel, indiscriminate and is a scorched earth approach in terms of leaving anything for the future needs of the population.

In the US, we dealt with the "rich foreigner" issue a little over 200 years ago.

There is a lot of money going somewhere for African game hunts. And if there is no game to hunt, that revenue will disappear.

What I am trying to illustrate is that there is a greater value to hunting dollars than to contributions from anti hunting groups, who ironically seem to create more poaching by their involvement.

Look at the countries that don't ban hunting. The gamne populations generally thrive and in some cases thrive too much. And compare that to Kenya, where the only pressure on game is from poaching, and where the very existence of game is an issue.

Maybe we as hunters need to start asking more questions. How much of my trophy fee goes to the local population? What percentage of the fees I pay plowed back into the local economy?

At the same time, we need to be aware of what the PH's go through. A lot of these guys are sticking it out in situations few of us would tolerate. It is critical to support them as well.

I'm not saying I have answers for any of this. What I am saying is that if you cannot appeal to countries to rationally view big game animals as a resource that can be self sustaining, then appeal to their pocketbooks with a value proposition showing them a way to generate an ongoing and sustainable source of revenue.