From some of the more knowledgable amoung you all.
I'm comming up against some unenlightened attitudes, sadly from hunters, who don't have a world veiw, and are resorting to the old emotive chestnuts we all know. Endangered, freindly peaceful animals, no skill in hunting one ETC.
I'd love some of you to post up here for me, some of the excellant info I've seen at times on population and how hunting is working for the elephant, and maybe some firsthand accounts of really good hunt's, especially with a bow for me to use in my argument.
Any help thankfully accepted.
SP

No point debating with 'them', but you could ask how much'they' have personally contributed to the conservation of African wildlife?

Sorry, I'm not an expert but I would like to comment. After I returned from my dream elephant hunt I of course wanted to talk about it with everyone I met. I quickly learned I was best to keep it to myself. What suprised me most was the reaction of other hunters, they were almost as bad as the non-hunters in their opinion of elephant hunting. I tried to explain the danger and excitement along with elephants being overpopulated but I am sure I convinced no one. Unfortunately this argument is ruled by emotion and not logic or facts.

When talking with other hunters about elephant being endangered, mention that there are more elephants in Africa then elk in North America. That usually makes them rethink their position.

465H&H

Thanks 465, I didn't know that myself.

This might be of some help in the argument. I recently added up the cape buffalo population estimates Kevin Robertson's "Africa's Most Dangerous". I was surprised that the high estimate for 7 countries that offer cape buffalo hunting (Tanz, Zambia, Zim, Moz, Bots, Namibia and RSA) was just over 500,000 with a combined sport hunting off take of just over 6%. Compare this to the elephant population estimates I've recently heard. 800,000 to 1.3 million, with 1 to 1.2 million seeming to get the widest acceptance. Now the elephant population estimates are Africa wide, not just the hunting countries, but the elphant also inhabits a wider range of habitats than the cape buff (Yes, I know about the other kinds of buffalo, just don't have population estimates at hand).

Dean

Cheers guys. Seems it stirs up some emotions,I probably won't change an opinions, but what i will do is put forward a clear argument for the undecided to consider. Found a few gems going back through these pages last night.
Oh the internet is a wonderful thing.

At least in the communal areas of Zimbabwe, I don't think the locals are upset about an elephant on the ground!

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
No point debating with 'them', but you could ask how much'they' have personally contributed to the conservation of African wildlife?

Exactly. I try not to talk too much about hunting, until I know that the person likes to hunt themselves, then I'll talk their ear off. If someone starts talking bad about hunting around me, I answer with that question "how much have you contributed to the conservation of wildlife?"

Common sense is anything but common

I have a really great idea.

When you've worn this subject out, call President Obama and engage him in a spirited, thoughtful conversation about the vitues of an FAL versus an M1A1.

quote:

Originally posted by mauser93:
I have a really great idea.

When you've worn this subject out, call President Obama and engage him in a spirited, thoughtful conversation about the vitues of an FAL versus an M1A1.

I don't get your point. Are you pissing on this thread? I hope not. I've learned some stats on ele population and a good answer for anti-hunters!

I've talked to a lot of non-hunters about hunting elephants. For the most part, I think all of them thought it was a good idea once some basic conservation practices were explained to them.

1. Elephants are not endangered. In parts of their range that don't allow sport hunting, elephants have been slaughtered by poachers, along with most of the other wild animals.

2. In the US, we have the luxery of having wildlife for the sake of having wildlife. In Africa, in the best case scenario, the local wildlife completes with the native's livestock for grazing and water. Worst case scenario, the wildlife eats their crops (which can lead to starvation), eats the natives or simply stonps them into the dirt. We think wildlife is beautiful and great, to them it's a potentially dangerous pain in the ass. Especially large, dangerous animals like elephants, hippos, crocodiles and lions.

3. In the countries that allow sport hunting, the local people receive a large portion of the trophy fees paid by hunters, the meat from the animals, as well as jobs working in safari camps. It's only in countries/area's with sport hunting where wildlife is considered valuable, and thus preserved.

4. Specific to elephants, they're actually very overpopulated in southern Africa. When there are too many elephants, they destroy the environment by pushing over all of the trees, causing desertification. This negatively impacts all animals, including humans. Then show them a picture of what elephants do to the trees.

When you explain to most people that the meat from the elephant goes to the locals, and that elephants aren't peaceful, gentle animals that happily co-exist with humans, a rational person will think differently about elephant hunting. Most people don't differentiate between different countries in Africa. They don't realize that wildlife is only endangered in specific countries, not the whole continent.

Pete

Please find below the script that was used in the CAMPFIRE documentary which was featured in the African Hunting Gazette's Safari Newsreel: Zimbabwe DVD. It is long but hopefully you will find something of use somewhere.

CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe.

Elephant populations once extended over most of Africa, including what is now the Sahara desert. Today they are confined to sub-Saharan Africa where they occupy a total area of around five million sq kilometres. Their range is rapidly diminishing in the face of an exploding human population desperate for more and more land.

International concern that the elephant is endangered is mired in sensationalism, half-truths, over- generalizations, the need to raise money for animal rights charities and the false notion that there is a simple uniform solution for the whole continent.

Two widely divergent perspectives prevail on this controversial subject. The first is the preservationist viewpoint, supported primarily by the East African and Western authorities, which proposes no consumptive utilisation of elephant and seeks to enforce a ban on ivory and other elephant products. Their arguments are based on fears that the elephant is an endangered species on the brink of extinction.

Southern African conservationists take an opposite stance. In Southern Africa the problem is one of too many elephant for the available habitat. What is proposed is sustainable utilisation of elephant by sports hunters in marginal wildlife areas, and the active controlling of elephant numbers to prevent habitat destruction in National Parks. Revenue derived from this is crucial for supporting conservation efforts.

For a species to be listed on the Convention in International Trade in Endangered Species (CITIES) appendix one, it " must be currently threatened with extinction". In the early 1900's there were less than 50 southern white rhinoceros in existence. Good conservation methods, including sustainable utilisation, enabled the population to increase to around 13 000 today. Although the white rhino is still listed on the CITIES appendix two it is generally thought to be "out of danger". The term endangered is used for the African elephant whose continental population is in the region of 600 000.

Zimbabwe has a large elephant population. During the last census 84 000 animals were counted, between 10 and 12% of Africa’s total. The country covers less than 2% of the species’ natural range. National parks and wildlife estates extends over 44 000 km2 or 13% of Zimbabwe’s total land area. Nearly 30 % of the country is under some form of wildlife management. This represents a huge investment by the government and people who are unable to use this land for grazing or cultivation. In the face of escalating pressure from an ever-increasing human population, this form of land use has to be justified.

A viable elephant population requires a great deal of food, space and water. An elephant's diet includes a wide variety of palatable grasses and browse plants. A large bull will eat for 18 hours a day, needing over 170 kg of fodder, only 40 % of which is digested. At least 160 litres of water is needed daily. Even under ideal climatic conditions, overall population densities of more than one animal per square km are rare. This means that a breeding population of 2000 animals, probably the smallest viable number in genetic terms, requires, under perfect circumstances, at least 2000 sq. km of range.

Most national parks throughout Africa are in marginal arid areas and owe their existence to the fact that they are unsuitable for agricultural activities. Under these conditions the environment can only support a ratio of one elephant per four square kilometres, a population of 2000 elephants needing a range of 8000 km2. To be sustainable, the present population of 84 000 elephant would require the exclusive use of somewhere between 40 and 80% of Zimbabwe’s total area.

Using population dynamics, ecologists have estimated that Zimbabwe’s elephant population in 1900 was around 4000. By 1984 it was 57 000, a growth rate of over 5% per year. Despite the removal of 46 775 animals by hunting and culling, between 1960 and 1991, the national population exceeded 76 000 head by 1991. During this same period the human population has increased fourteen fold. The increase, along with agricultural expansion, has forced the elephant population from two thirds of the land formerly available.

Elephant and agriculture are incompatible. This conflict is accentuated in the case of subsistence farming. Communal lands are traditional tribal areas where a large proportion of Zimbabwe's human population resides.
Approximately 12 000 of Zimbabwe's elephant live outside the national parks, and the majority are found in the communal lands. Elephant are not welcome here.

A peasant family’s annual staple food crop can easily be wiped out in a single night by crop-raiding elephant. Protecting the crops at night by drum beating and brandishing burning logs to chase off elephant can last for three or four months of the year. This 24-hour vigil is extended if the elephants have learned to raid harvested grain storage bins. This is a serious drain on a family’s time and labor. The peasant farmer’s view of elephant is very different to that of a camera-toting tourist or philosophical armchair conservationist. Elephant are considered pests that need to be exterminated.

Many different techniques to stop crop-raiding elephant have been tried over the years including thunder-flashes, lights, and gunshots, with little success. Driving elephants with beaters or helicopters is also ineffective. Fencing, both cable and electric, is expensive and only works to a certain extent. A fence soon turns into wire snares if the local community place little value on wildlife. The killing of a crop-raiding bull does not deter others and often control teams arrive days after the damage has been done.

In the past, wildlife in communal areas belonged to the State, the people having no stake in this natural resource. Any financial benefits from wildlife went straight to the central government; the people received only the negative effects of wildlife such as crop raiding elephant.

In the mid 1980's the Campfire programme was initiated by Zimbabwe’s wildlife authorities. Campfire is the acronym for communal areas management programme for indigenous resources and is a strategy devised to try and satisfy the needs of rural communities while conserving wildlife and habitats.

The policy gives rural communities the right to decide how - and whether- they want to conserve wildlife and habitats, and the ability to benefit from them if they do. At present, rural communities in 26 regions have adopted the Campfire approach. A pertinent fact is that the program was not imposed on the communities, the people opted for it themselves.

Safari hunting is the best wildlife use option in communal areas. Game populations are generally too low to support photographic safari operations but high enough to sustain controlled hunting. The bulk of the safari hunting opportunities in communal lands is for dangerous game, the majority of which are considered problem animals i.e. crop raiders and predators raiding livestock.

The hunting of these animals by sport hunters benefits the people in these areas in three ways. Firstly from the revenue raised through trophy fees on the animals, second is control of the problem animals and thirdly the meat from the hunted animals' goes back to the people. A secondary spin off from the hunting operations is employment in the safari camps as well as promoting the curios industry.

An additional advantage of hunting as a form of natural resources utilization is that little infrastructure is required. Camping in the bush is part of the experience, so large tourist hotels and extensive road networks are not necessary. As a result, negative environmental and cultural impacts associated with more intensive forms of mass tourism are minimized.

The local district council, and not the central government, controls revenue earned through sport hunting. Decisions on how the money is used are taken by the people and take the form of cash dividends, infra structure development such as wells, grinding mills, schools and clinics, as well as compensation payment for damage by wildlife to crops and livestock. This form of grass-roots democracy in decision-making is as important to the well being of these communities as the revenue generated itself. Instead of being dictated to by a central government, the people are in control of their own destiny.

Every major Zimbabwean national park has at least one boundary with a communal land. Communities in these regions have set aside areas along these boundaries for wildlife. This is vitally important as not only does this afford an extended habitat for the game, but also a buffer zone is created between the people and the national parks. Human encroachment on protected wilderness areas is pushed back. The advent of Campfire has placed a value on wildlife to the community and pressure on the individual not to poach has increased tremendously.

Elephant hunting generates 64% of the revenue from Campfire and the ability for sports hunters to take ivory home is crucial to the success of the project. Although hunting trophies are exempt from the ivory ban at present, there is increasing pressure from the anti-hunting lobby for a ban to be imposed. This influences public opinion, which has a negative effect on the demand for elephant hunting. If the importation of sport hunted ivory is banned, the campfire project will collapse.

The percentage of trophy hunted elephant is very small. In Zimbabwe, the annual quota is set at about 200 elephants per year out of a national population of about 76,000 elephants. Over the five-year period from 1988 to 1992, only 771 elephants were actually shot on trophy license in Zimbabwe.

The Zimbabwean National Parks authorities have a huge stockpile of ivory that has been collected over the years from natural deaths and problem animal control. At present this ivory cannot be sold because of a world-wide ban on the trade in ivory. Western conservation agencies have rejected requests from Zimbabwe to sell off this ivory. They argue that effective monitoring systems, controls and law enforcement are essential before any trade can resume. Their concern is that any future legal international trade in ivory from some countries may adversely impact endangered elephant populations in others. New long-term international monitoring systems are under development but are not yet operational. The Zimbabwean authorities maintain that they are being punished for being too good at conserving their elephant populations.

Zimbabwe’s argument is that too many elephant are destroying the environment and that sustainable utilisation of this resource is one way of solving perennial economic problems. Furthermore, they argue that it makes no economic sense to spend hard earned currency preserving ivory stockpiles that could instead be sold to generate foreign exchange.

There is a feeling of a neo-colonialist conspiracy. Many Africans believe that most decisions and policies about Africa's environment are made in European boardrooms, without the participation of the African nations that feel the consequences. Decisions are made, imposed and are expected to be observed without question.

Raising money for wildlife conservation movements is big business and one of the biggest money-spinners is the emotive draw-card of the "fate of the African elephant". The plight of the elephant has more appeal than an endangered fish or plant. If products from elephant were as important as tropical timber to the western world, attitudes would certainly be different. A sentiment of anti-utilization of African wildlife is easily whipped up amongst a largely uninformed western public in order to fill the charity coffers. Making money becomes more important than practical conservation.

The campfire model of natural resources utilization works and is being adopted in various forms in other parts of Africa such as Botswana, Zambia and the Central African Republic. At the end of the day it is the people of Africa who hold the future of the continent’s wildlife in their hands and not the misplaced intentions of western wildlife conservation agencies.

It has been suggested that Africa’s elephant population be rehabilitated to its "historical" population of around one million animals. This would amount to a massive imposition on the developing countries of sub-Saharan Africa. It is estimated that the cost to the region would be in excess of US$I.8 billion per year. 10% of the entire sub-continent’s agricultural production would have to be forfeited to support a single wildlife species.

Competition for resources is an integral part of the law of nature. Actual ecosystems include man and are an intricate web of lethal conflict, not a facade of beauty, natural tranquillity or elegant philosophy. The future of Africa’s wilderness areas depends on the recognition of this self-evident truth.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I'm comming up against some unenlightened attitudes, sadly from hunters ... Endangered, freindly peaceful animals, no skill in hunting one ETC.
SP

I am sure that those fellows hunt whitetails so point out to those unenlightened hunters that "friendly peaceful animals, no skill in hunting one" better describes whitetail deer rather than elephants. And neither is endangered.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I'm comming up against some unenlightened attitudes, sadly from hunters ... Endangered, freindly peaceful animals, no skill in hunting one ETC.
SP

I am sure that those fellows hunt whitetails so point out to those unenlightened hunters that "friendly peaceful animals, no skill in hunting one" better describes whitetail deer rather than elephants. And neither is endangered.

JPK

+1

Re my post: Not that whitetail hunting isn't good fun.



(And yes, consistently killing very high scoring whitetails takes more than luck.)

shankspony

People tend to show little understanding often for what they have not experienced. The comments you are getting concerning elephant hunting are based on ignorance and perhaps jealousy. Who really would not like to have a huge set of ivory tusks in their house.

As far as endangered goes the African elephant as others have stated much more factually is in over abundance in a lot of its range to the detriment of humans, the environment and its own survival.

Elephants are not friendly in any sense of the word other than in some Disney movie. They will kill you in a heart beat if they think you are threatening them or their young. They also are not peaceful. They create havoc anywhere they come in contact with humans. It is I suppose the fault of humans but we can't control the African population growth.

Elephant hunting just takes a different skill than hunting the species on your home islands. To me there is no experience in the hunting world that compares to approaching a big bull elephant with rifle in hand intent on killing that elephant. Ask your friends to experience that and then give you their assessment of elephant hunting.

Mark

I saw 210 elephants on my 14 day hunt, and could not believe the amount of damage they caused every day. We were continually clearing roads blocked by fallen trees - actually eating themselves out of house and home!

Point out to your friends that a single elephant supports a village for about 3 weeks.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
At least in the communal areas of Zimbabwe, I don't think the locals are upset about an elephant on the ground!

Great Pict--and I've got a twin to it, just in Moz.

I think I may be of some help to you with your friends

Safari hunting in Africa raises approximately $200 million annually in Africa, from just
18,500 clients (Lindsey et al. 2007). This is spent unevenly and mostly in Southern Africa,
but it is making important contributions to conservation estate and practice in these countries.

it is generaly understood that with no hunters el would be gone in 30 years botswana now and kenya in the past may be the exception but I would ent bet a box a bullets on em

I have to admit to being a hunter with the opinion that elephant hunting was not something i had much stomach for. After all they are a massive target, shot at spitting distance and not particularly hard to stalk close to!! I had the chance to hunt and shoot a non trophy bull elephant. I lost my ignorance and naivete very smartly. The adrenaline rush and heart pounding effects that being so close to a behemoth creates makes you wonder how you will manage to shoot accurately. I too have had people say how could you shoot an elephant. With some an explanation of the above points works for the others ... I don't expect any reasoning would work. Just an animal that evokes a lot of passion and misconceptions.

Thanks once again guys. I've used some of your examples in putting forward my case. In reallity though, its not soley about elephant, but getting people to understand that whats exotic in nature, or different in cultural activity to us in NZ, Is maybe considered ordinary of nature and behaviour to others from elsewhere, and as hunters we should not be using the emotive put downs against other hunters, which are so readily thrown at us by those that wish to see hunting stopped, especially from a point of ignorance.

You can veiw the discussion here if you wish.
http://www.fishnhunt.co.nz/for...B.cgi?num=1271278091
i hope I have put across a suitable veiwpoint.