With Mugabwe ordering the take over of all ranches, what is now the future of hunting in Zim?...other than Mugabwe.

I don't see much of a hunting future in Zimbabwe. 5, maybe 10 years, tops and it will all be gone.

For those who believe there is more to being a hunter than pulling the trigger and satisfying yourself (which I do not disdain), there is a deep sense of moral outrage in even considering Zimbabwe as a hunting destination after all the evil that has been inflicted on whites and blacks alike by that tyrannical regime.

That is sure to start something.

You can be morally outraged all you want but without safari hunting Zim will no longer have any game animals or the people who preserve them.

If we are talking about (human rights) then below is USA latest hit list .... The reason I single out the USA is because no other country except proberbly the UK bothers what occurs in the world or can do anything about it if they choose !!!

Essentially (unless it effects the USA directly) I dont believe the government there cares what goes on in Zim's as they have (bigger fish to fry) (-:

Basically Mugabe will only fall when the local people revolt not when some Westerm leader says he is a naughty boy.

Finally, it is a bit Hypocritical to say DONT hunt in Zim's bacause of (Comrade Mugabe) & his jackboot regime, when other countries much worse pose a far greater problem.

Dont get me wrong, Mugabe is a (real serious problem) for the people living there but the way to get it solved is to take him out not to talk about how bad he is and dont hunt there

Peter
--------------------

WASHINGTON, Mar 8 (IPS) - Releasing the latest edition of its annual human rights "Country Reports",

The U.S. State Department Wednesday named Iran and China as among the world's "most systematic human rights violators" in 2005, along with North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Belarus.

I have a close friend and Rhodesian native who lives around the corner from me. He is a brilliant physician, board certified in internal medicine and pathology and twice his diagnosis has saved a family member's life (after a fubar by someone else). He was wounded multiple times in the "war", left the rifle toters and went to Med school, only to return to the Army as a doc until the bitter end. My doc buddy thinks my going to hunt in Zim is wrong. I absolutely respect his opinion, but when I ask him about my money supporting the fellows I know in Zimbabwe who are "hanging on", only trying to preserve what they can of a way of life and a country they love... he's not happy, but he can't damn me for my reasons for hunting Zimbabwe, either.

I'm sure some of my money (three safaris in the last four years in Zim) went to the bad guys, but to avoid the corruption as much as possible, I read the taboo lists, listened to guys here like Ganyana, and hope my friends (whose names probably don't need to me mentioned here) can hang in there as long as possible... in case... just possibliy.. until reason and some kind of balance is met.

Who knows who is right? Me or the doc? No one really thinks the present gov't is, of course... but of the opposition, is it the ex-pat boycotters, or the hangers-on and their supporters?

I spent three nights this month with a fellow in Harare who is just trying to make a living in the land of his birth. His dad and mom live with him having been "removed" from their formerly productive farm by 20ish year-old "war vets". What B.S.

My Harare friend's wife and children, though white, are one hell of a lot more African than Jesse Jackson... but you'll never hear Jesse or Al Sharpeton complain (much less offer any suggestion by which white folks can live in peace with black folks in Africa). Ms. Rice is an exception, of course... but can she accomplish anything when the U.N. puts Zim on Human Rights commissions?

Think of the irony. The world boycotted Ian Smith's government to change the regime. Now folks want hunters to, guess what?... boycott Zim to change the regime. Who got hurt worse the first time and who will get hurt worse the second?

I wish the hell I knew what to do with some certainty. I do know that folks I love have asked me to return. They need my support. I'll continue to give it until I learn better.

As to your inquiry about hunting:
I've been fortunate to have really good experiences 2 out of 3 tries in Zim. The first time botch was due, I believe, to the untimely death of the owner of the safari company. Locals really took advantage of his being gone. The successes the second and third times came from listening to folks on A.R. who had been there (recently) and done that.

In Zim, timing and concession choice are all important. Read and learn here. It really helped me. There are some areas that are slap full of game. Some absoultely devoid. Good luck... If you do it right, you'll never get more bang for your buck, especially for DG.

quote:

Originally posted by Balla Balla:
If we are talking about (human rights) then below is USA latest hit list .... The reason I single out the USA is because no other country except proberbly the UK bothers what occurs in the world or can do anything about it if they choose !!!

Essentially (unless it effects the USA directly) I dont believe the government there cares what goes on in Zim's as they have (bigger fish to fry) (-:

Basically Mugabe will only fall when the local people revolt not when some Westerm leader says he is a naughty boy.

Finally, it is a bit Hypocritical to say DONT hunt in Zim's bacause of (Comrade Mugabe) & his jackboot regime, when other countries much worse pose a far greater problem.

Dont get me wrong, Mugabe is a (real serious problem) for the people living there but the way to get it solved is to take him out not to talk about how bad he is and dont hunt there

Peter
--------------------

WASHINGTON, Mar 8 (IPS) - Releasing the latest edition of its annual human rights "Country Reports",

The U.S. State Department Wednesday named Iran and China as among the world's "most systematic human rights violators" in 2005, along with North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Belarus.

Balla Balla,
The U.S. will not take action as long as South Africa and the ANC stand aside and allow Mugabe to do his thing. On Colin Powell's visit to South Africa in 2001(?), he and Mbeki met about Zim, Mbeki assured the U.S. that South Africa would use their influence in Zim and the ANC to propogate change in Zim. So far no one in Africa, except the MDC and the starving hordes, appear to care one way or the other about Mugabe.

Why would the U.S. step in if South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana and Zambia appear to support the dictator, or at least not oppose him? Mbeki assured President Bush that the last elections would be fair!

You say the U.S. is the only country that can oust Mugabe, but if Moz and RSA shut off trade routes, that would be that and the end would be over.

Even though some of the money paid for a hunt may end up with the regime, it doesn't really matter. Mugabe and co have billions salted away and won't be effected.

Some of the money ends up in the hands of locals and makes their lives better and, possibly, puts them in a better position to facilitate change.

In addition, talking to people in countries like this shows them that freedom and good governance are real, not just some propaganda on the television or radio.

I have thought a lot about these issues as I have worked for the governments of some Central Asian countries which have very dubious human rights and governance records (and despite this, are allies of Australia and the US). Apart from helping improve the health care system a little, I think my contact and discussiions with local people on a social level really lets them see what life is like in the West, warts and all. For example, locals in Central Asia are aware that salaries of $1,000 a week are common in the West but don't realise that you have to spend half that renting your home or paying the mortgage, or that a bottle of vodka costs $25 rather $1.

Anyway, we each have to make our own decisions.

mike

Balla Balla and AussieMike,

I have questioned myself about the very issue you all are discussing. I have traveled the world on business and been in places that I consider far worse than Zim (Nigeria and Pakistan with Russia and Kazakhstan not far behind). I have had the privilege to have met with various government officials in several countries as well along with leaders in the USA.

I have briefly discussed with them - how is US policy formed and how is it implemented?

The answers I got were -

1. We make policy in, what we believe, is the best interest of the US and our citizens. This means, if a country has a direct impact on USA economy, safety or long term interests - we will get involved somehow.

2.The basis for policy is our view of the world, the relationship that our Constitution has with how we feel a country should behave, and our perception of what is "right".

3. It varies from President to President. Look at the differences between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. THis means that it changes every 4 or 8 years. This is a problem as most countries have figured out that they can "wait us out" for a change of office to see what will happen next.

Human rights issues came in vogue with Jimmy Carter. My opinion - this is a great concept but in reality - why do we, the USA, get involved in human rights issues in places where their perception of "rights" is vastly different than our own. In the USA, we protect the rights of everyone - criminals, law abiding citizens and non-citizens - why? It is our culture.

Personnaly, I do not favor attempting to "spread democracy" everywhere. It does not work everywhere and never will work everywhere. It is not a one size fits all type of government. It works for an education populace with the rough set of cultural values we have. It won't work in most African countries as the values and traditions are different as are the educational standards. Why try to force fit this?

I am astounded that we are trying to force fit this in Afganistan, Iraq and other Islamic countries. First, it can't fit as there is no moral, ethnic, cultural or religous base to support democracy.

Show me one country that has had democracy "force fit" from outside it's borders that is successfull. You cannot. The only way social change works is from within the country and from the very people that will have to live under. Internal revolt, change, revolution must come from within when the people say - we want change. To me, RSA is pretty good example of that. I fully expected a bloodbath when Mandela rose to power, but he steered that country as well as he could toward peaceful internally drive change.

All of this to say - Zim won't change until the people of Zim rise up and say enough is enough. The animals will suffer, but so will the people. The animals can be re-started if wholesale slaughter happens. Look at RSA and Namibia.

My opinion for what it is worth.

dogcat,

Well said!

quote:

Show me one country that has had democracy "force fit" from outside it's borders that is successfull. You cannot. The only way social change works is from within the country and from the very people that will have to live under. Internal revolt, change, revolution must come from within when the people say - we want change. To me, RSA is pretty good example of that. I fully expected a bloodbath when Mandela rose to power, but he steered that country as well as he could toward peaceful internally drive change.

All of this to say - Zim won't change until the people of Zim rise up and say enough is enough. The animals will suffer, but so will the people. The animals can be re-started if wholesale slaughter happens. Look at RSA and Namibia.

Dogcat makes a fair point here, the very basis of 'revolution' (I mean that in the sfat sense not the pop-culture war means) or counter-hegemony is movement from the 'subaltern' masses (USSR 'communism tried this from the top down and it was a balls up!).
This type of change needs to a proletarian effort. Obviously today this trype of political movemnt is not a simple process and involves all manner of convoluted relations with various countries and so. Just about any author /analyst who has mad eit their lifes work and passion sicne the French revolution aggrees on this.

Interestinly enough, a number of these folks aggree that the ANC is likely to be the last national liberation movement the of its kind the world will see, in terms of history, implementing and outcome. Just out of interest..

Zim folks need to adopt an ethic of countering Mugabes will, just like an other population who want to depose a leader. When I was working in Ecuador, folks there seems very attuned to this (so it seemed?) and got rid of Lucio last year in a one foul swoop. Kind or Orange 'revolution' style?

Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
:::SNIP:::
Show me one country that has had democracy "force fit" from outside it's borders that is successfull. :::SNIP:::

JAPAN

quote:

Originally posted by formerflyer:

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
:::SNIP:::
Show me one country that has had democracy "force fit" from outside it's borders that is successfull. :::SNIP:::

JAPAN

Good point, but.... Japan was pounded into nothing, with its collective self image shattered by the end of the war. The U.S. was able to occupy the ISLANDS (ie directly control who came in and out) and start from scratch with a unified population with a tradition of subservience. Great job on the reconstruction, but Japan was an excellent place to try something like that.

Very few places around the world have such favourable conditions as existed in Japan at the time. One key element of the success in Japan was the complete stomping it took in the war. I can't see the world allowing such a thing to happen today. Casualties into the 10's of millions, the systematic destruction of the national economy, cites and the infrastructure that supported them, not to mention the deliberate widespread destruction of the civilian population.

Not that this has anything directly to do with hunting in Zim, other than to suggest that trying to do in Zim what was done in Japan would likely be futile at best.

Dean

Whatever America did to japan it worked. The national sport is now baseball.

VBR,

Ted Gorsline

dogcat, I agree for the most part with your opinions. I have had and still have grave doubts democracy will work in Iraq however I admit the possibillity that it could. The reason is I think this is there are many examples of this working. Most the south pacific for example, I do not claim that any or all the many examples around the world are perfect ones or that they will last 100's of years but there are many out there. It is also a judgment call whether some would be better off with a more totalitarian type of rule. One problem at the moment in the USA is it is not "PC" to support a strong arm type of rule (unless ofcourse the opposition is white and the rulere's are any other color".

In the case of Japan, they had a couple of things going for them that brought about the change - strong educational system that allowed the people to see and chose what would work for them, and they were able to start over with a great deal of aid from the US and others. Second, they saw that what they tried did not work and decided to go a new direction.

PS - I like their style of baseball. I prefer it to ours as they play the game as a team, not as bunch of spoiled rich boys. At least the coach can tell the players what position to play unlike the whinny brat with the Nationals (Soriano).

They were not hindered by a religous system that tried to be a government as well. The base religion in Japan was not opposed to a democracy of sorts (which is what they have). They did retain the emperor concept, but he does not have much power - similar to the royals in England.

Without internal support for change, they would still be lagging the world - much like China is and others.

Folks,

I know some people will find this offensive but I don't think my personal actions will change anything in Zimbabwe so I'll just continue to hunt and book other hunters on safaris there as long as I can. Folks are looking for a descent price on a good hunt and I want to put people where they can have a good experience. These things are still avaialbe in Zim. Uncle Bob will not notice one way or the other if I book Zim or not.

As for any of shinanagins in Zim attracting any real interest in the US I just can't imagine it. Zim is not that important in the grand scheme of things. Also I think with our track record of stepping on our figurative cranks when messing about in the business of foreign countries it would be prudent to stay the out of this one.

Look! Our safari dollars do directly help quite a few people black and white in Zim. I don't think we can do much else until the people throw Mugabe out themselves.

Mark

I don't find it offensive, Mark. You have to do what you think is right. I won't be joining you for the same reason. I have to do what I think is right.

quote:

Originally posted by maki:
I can't see the world allowing such a thing to happen today. Casualties into the 10's of millions, the systematic destruction of the national economy, cites and the infrastructure that supported them, not to mention the deliberate widespread destruction of the civilian population.

The world is much less inclined to get involved now than it was 65 years ago due to the conversion of Europe to a land of effeminate pantywaists.

500grains - tell us what you really think.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
The world is much less inclined to get involved now than it was 65 years ago due to the conversion of Europe to a land of effeminate pantywaists.

It's bigger than just Europe. I call it the wussification of the West.

Dean

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Show me one country that has had democracy "force fit" from outside it's borders that is successfull. You cannot.

Iraq?

(BTW I am being facetious.)

Especially when it is surrounded by Arab dictatorships who are bankrolling a revolt to ensure THEIR future survival ie the dictators.

Yet the West supports these Arab dictatorships. Sort of hypocritical to single out Mugabe for hunters "moral outrage".

I guess a more accurate description of my question is "How much longer will we be ABLE to hunt in Zimbabwe?

Thumper

My belief is hunting will continue in Zimbabwe. If political events take a turn for the worse there maybe some hiccups for a year or two, but it will start up again.

The price will go up in the future, no doubt, so now is the time to do it if price is an issue. Zimbabwe would be having a competitively dampening effect on prices in other countries too.

As for ranch hunts, I would tread carefully. Having been burned on one of these myself, I prefer concession and safari areas. Some larger ranches seem still to work out OK however eg Lemco and some Sabi areas.

I'm not interested in hunting on stolen land myself so don't deal with those outfitters.

Should mention that if your not hunting zim because of the political situation you shouldnt use gas in your car that comes from Saudi Arabia.

500grains



Perry

Guys & Ladies

Being a Outfitter and hunter in South Africa, I look North with trepidation I think the word is, the history of our continent, has proven itself over and over again.

I am a African, our family is and has been in this country since 1763 or something ridiculous. And that does not help me didley squat, I am still a white man out here. I will be forced too enroll some @##$%%^^^ as BEE partner within the near future too attampt too exist here further.

I have no wish too live anywhere else in the world,

But, look at Zimbabwe, it is great hunting area, great people, as half of my family comes from there and I have a couple buried there during the bush war, but going hunting thee with clients ? OR sending them too a reputable outfitter ?

I do not think so, why ? You will go to Zim, have a great Hunt , a great time and no feeling of uneasiness with your trip,

The madman called Mugabe, and trust me he is not alone, there is about x thousand supporting him , either family or politically motivated cronies, decided that your hard earned trophies must now pay a " export Fee " that was unheard of before, and believ me they can deicide on such a thing in a whim !!

What memories will you have without those trophies ??

No, sorry my colleagues that are Ethical, Honest,Hardworking PH'S of Zimbabwe. I can not think of worse situation too bee in.

All one party states, regardless of the best intentions of their original leaders, very soon become criminal organizations and nothing else. They are all run on a might is right basis.

The government budgets are allocated in order of importance and they are always 1) army 2) police 3) other things.

Once this happens the people at the bottom cannot change anything. I keep hearing we must respect third world cultures for what they are. The people who tell us this are the leaders of such cultures who want to stay the the top of the heap.

I am sure that if the little guys at the bottom could vote and understood the implications of doing so they would want to do so in any culture.


VBR,


Ted Gorsline

W

I can't afford to go so I don't really care one way or the other.

Now if Zimbabwe had oil.......

Who can predict what will happen in Zim. For today. next week, next year if you choose a reputable PH and outfitter you can and will have a great hunt in Zim. The safari company you book will always have your best interest in mind (and safety). Plan to still book John Sharp (again) in near future.
bobga