quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Thanks Tim and Packer should be sent packing. Really who the fcuk is he anyway?

And Andrew...that response is EXACTLY why we are where we are today.

Like it or not...the American hunter has to abide by USF&WS rules...at least until we get a hunting friendly POTUS...if we ever do.

Craig is the guy that USF&WS listens to and that is not likely to change as frankly...he has the credentials.

So...for the umpteen millionth time...Craig is not anti-hunting. He helped Michel Allard & TGTS manage there lions successfully years ago. He put his name on the Huntable Male Lion Definition and sticks by it today.

So...why did it NOT make sense to work WITH the guy vs. against him???

Working against got us where we are today.

My position is that working WITH him certainly could NOT have put us in worse position...AND...could have potentially saved us from all of this.

I am happy to NOT be the one to try to walk the fine line between science and industry any longer. It is an impossible feat!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm
So...for the umpteen millionth time...Craig is not anti-hunting.

“We have to consider that trophy hunting might be making things even worse.” Pulled that quote from "Lions in the Balance" - written by Craig Packer.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm
So...for the umpteen millionth time...Craig is not anti-hunting.

“We have to consider that trophy hunting might be making things even worse.” Pulled that quote from "Lions in the Balance" - written by Craig Packer.

Yes...and what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Do you know??? As I do and will present it right after you tell me if you know the context.

Cherry-picking quotes that out of context to anger people is exactly how we got to where we are today!

So what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Or...even easier...what time period was it referring too???

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm
So...for the umpteen millionth time...Craig is not anti-hunting.

“We have to consider that trophy hunting might be making things even worse.” Pulled that quote from "Lions in the Balance" - written by Craig Packer.

Yes...and what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Do you know??? As I do and will present it right after you tell me if you know the context.

Cherry-picking quotes that out of context to anger people is exactly how we got to where we are today!

So what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Or...even easier...what time period was it referring too???

Yes, Lane. He disputed the hunting industry claims that money from the sport helps conserve lions, and trophy hunting in Tanzania was contributing to the lion’s decline.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm
So...for the umpteen millionth time...Craig is not anti-hunting.

“We have to consider that trophy hunting might be making things even worse.” Pulled that quote from "Lions in the Balance" - written by Craig Packer.

Yes...and what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Do you know??? As I do and will present it right after you tell me if you know the context.

Cherry-picking quotes that out of context to anger people is exactly how we got to where we are today!

So what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Or...even easier...what time period was it referring too???

Yes, Lane. He disputed the hunting industry claims that money from the sport helps conserve lions, and trophy hunting in Tanzania was contributing to the lion’s decline.

You did not answer my question Jeff. What time period was being referred to when he made that quote?

quote:

DR. IKANDA’S MAIN MESSAGE TANZANIA HAS THE POPULATION TO MAINTAIN AN ANNUAL TAKE OF 200 MALE LIONS, 6 YEARS IN AGE OR OLDER. CURRENTLY ABOUT 50 MALE LIONS ARE TAKEN ANNUALLY.

One other additional question for you Tim...did Tanzania make there aging criteria and results on those 50 lions open and transparent for all to review like they were suppose to when the initial law was written???

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm
So...for the umpteen millionth time...Craig is not anti-hunting.

“We have to consider that trophy hunting might be making things even worse.” Pulled that quote from "Lions in the Balance" - written by Craig Packer.

Yes...and what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Do you know??? As I do and will present it right after you tell me if you know the context.

Cherry-picking quotes that out of context to anger people is exactly how we got to where we are today!

So what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Or...even easier...what time period was it referring too???

Yes, Lane. He disputed the hunting industry claims that money from the sport helps conserve lions, and trophy hunting in Tanzania was contributing to the lion’s decline.

You did not answer my question Jeff. What time period was being referred to when he made that quote?

Lane, this is turning into a pissing contest because I exposed a quote from Packer. I'm still waiting on your answer to the context of his quote too.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

DR. IKANDA’S MAIN MESSAGE TANZANIA HAS THE POPULATION TO MAINTAIN AN ANNUAL TAKE OF 200 MALE LIONS, 6 YEARS IN AGE OR OLDER. CURRENTLY ABOUT 50 MALE LIONS ARE TAKEN ANNUALLY.

One other additional question for you Tim...did Tanzania make there aging criteria and results on those 50 lions open and transparent for all to review like they were suppose to when the initial law was written???

You might want to ask about the involvement of Hilary Dafi as well.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm
So...for the umpteen millionth time...Craig is not anti-hunting.

“We have to consider that trophy hunting might be making things even worse.” Pulled that quote from "Lions in the Balance" - written by Craig Packer.

Yes...and what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Do you know??? As I do and will present it right after you tell me if you know the context.

Cherry-picking quotes that out of context to anger people is exactly how we got to where we are today!

So what is the context of that quote Jeff??? Or...even easier...what time period was it referring too???

Yes, Lane. He disputed the hunting industry claims that money from the sport helps conserve lions, and trophy hunting in Tanzania was contributing to the lion’s decline.

You did not answer my question Jeff. What time period was being referred to when he made that quote?

Lane, this is turning into a pissing contest because I exposed a quote from Packer. I'm still waiting on your answer to the context of his quote too.

Jeff,
That quote was referencing the time period prior to the 6 year old rule being implemented and referencing data published circa 2009.

CP is fine with hunting and killing 6 year old and greater males...it was his data that validated the rule. His beef with TZ after the rule is that TZ did not make their aging methodology and records transparent for verification...as the TZ Gvt agreed to do in the beginning.

Hence...Dr. Packer is pro-lion-hunting in the context it is today...as long as the trophy age verification process is transparent.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

DR. IKANDA’S MAIN MESSAGE TANZANIA HAS THE POPULATION TO MAINTAIN AN ANNUAL TAKE OF 200 MALE LIONS, 6 YEARS IN AGE OR OLDER. CURRENTLY ABOUT 50 MALE LIONS ARE TAKEN ANNUALLY.

One other additional question for you Tim...did Tanzania make there aging criteria and results on those 50 lions open and transparent for all to review like they were suppose to when the initial law was written???

You might want to ask about the involvement of Hilary Dafi as well.

Jeff

I was leaving that one for you Jeff. But...agreed!

Without a doubt, anything this government gets involved in is a total failure...The Peter principle of up and out at work, the sour cream rises to the top and those very idiots are running our country....

quote:

From: Craig Packer (cpacker@********.***) This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: Tue 12/29/15 3:26 PM
To: J Lane Easter DVM DACVS (ledvm@msn.com)

When Dennis Ikanda first worked with me, he was a reliable field assistant in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, and his Master's research paper (which I co-wrote) was quite solid. However, he became increasingly erratic during the course of his PhD studies, and though the quality of his data collection on man-eating lions (which I supervised) was still quite sound, his finished thesis was extremely disappointing, and he has not published any further scientific papers since receiving his degree. I was saddened to read his thesis and to see that he didn't understand how to perform the most basic statistical test. I tried to help him revise his thesis so that it might someday be published, but he struggled with the simplest calculations and he also became increasingly distracted by his duties at TAWIRI.
Dennis had been hired by the Tanzanian government while he was still a PhD student, and the appointment seemed to alter his behavior. His attitude towards expatriate scientists became increasingly hostile, and he often took it upon himself to inform us all that his primary obligations were to the Government, not to science. He also seemed determined to control any sort of lion research anywhere in the country.

Dennis was instrumental in the rejection of my research clearance in 2013, and he also lobbied the Director of Wildlife, Alex Songorwa, to block any independent lion surveys in any of Tanzania's hunting blocks. His statements about lion populations in Tanzania are misleading. Lion populations are well known to be declining in Tarangire and Katavi, and the Tanzanian government has made it impossible to determine what is happening in any of the hunting blocks. However, given that so many hunting blocks have been abandoned in Tanzania over the past few years owing to the overall decline of wildlife throughout the country, the situation clearly isn't good. By clinging to the ludicrous claim of 16,800 lions that was concocted five years ago, Dennis is doing a disservice to the long-term future of sport hunting in Tanzania. But it is far cheaper and easier to banish a whistleblower like myself than it is to address the fundamental economic challenges of the true conservation threats in the country.

Effective conservation management is expensive, and Tanzania's hunting industry only generates about 3% of the necessary funds. Lions are being poisoned, speared and snared throughout the country -- and most of these cases are occurring in the hunting blocks. Yes, sport hunting gives a bit of value to lions -- but at only three cents on the dollar, it's not enough to stop the decline.

I'm not sure why he is obsessing about the open grasslands of the Serengeti -- we monitored lions in the Serengeti woodlands as well as the open plains, and, until recently, the Serengeti woodland population was faring quite well -- though a two-year invasion/occupation by 300 Maasai families into the heart of the Serengeti apparently knocked back the woodlands lions in the past few years.

Dennis is clearly dedicated to continuing the cover-up of corruption in the Tanzanian hunting industry. He isn't going to admit that Tanzania is universally recognized as one of the most corrupt countries in Africa and that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism is so corrupt that the new President has so far been unable to find an honest man to serve as the new Minister of MNRT. Or that the former Director of Wildlife, Alex Songorwa, stood up in front of the gathered scientists at the TAWIRI conference in Arusha a few weeks ago and said that everyone in the WD is a crook and should be thrown in jail.

Dennis Ikanda is the perfect face of lion "research" in the Wildlife Division. It's his dream come true. And as long as he keeps out people like myself and other independent scientists, he will be the only voice in the country.

I just wish that your colleagues in the hunting community would help put pressure on countries like Tanzania to stop squandering their natural sources for the short-term benefit of a few crooked government officials. Tanzania's hunting blocks are doomed unless the situation is reversed. I've tried to get SCI to man up and confront the fact that trophy hunting will disappear with the wildlife, but they just say that it isn't their job to deal with corruption. But the only African countries with sustainable hunting are Namibia and South Africa, and neither country has anywhere near the same level of corruption as Tanzania. Our latest analysis of lion population trends across the continent suggest that it won't be long before most of Africa's remaining lions will be in southern Africa.

Craig

Craig's response to Tin Vining's post above.

quote:

However, given that so many hunting blocks have been abandoned in Tanzania over the past few years owing to the overall decline of wildlife throughout the country, the situation clearly isn't good.

So which TZ hunting blocks have been abandoned due to wildlife population decline? And who is to blame for this? Packer seems keen to blame the hunting industry for all these woes.

How does Aaron and other TZ connections feel that only 3% goes toward wildlife conservation?

Y'all know it is not just one guy at USF&W - or just one hunter - or just one year that is bringing all this about. The various issues have been ongoing 50 years as Africa and Africans struggle with the whole issues. Whether those are population, money, corruption, game management, poaching, much less sustainable levels and all the various definitions, rules, and laws that are now part of everything including hunting.

Further like just about everything this last 8 years or maybe longer, the USFWS is very likely going to reach its conclusions and set rules in place more as directives and politics than any studies or statistics. That is just quasi justification to make it look correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

However, given that so many hunting blocks have been abandoned in Tanzania over the past few years owing to the overall decline of wildlife throughout the country, the situation clearly isn't good.

So which TZ hunting blocks have been abandoned due to wildlife population decline? And who is to blame for this? Packer seems keen to blame the hunting industry for all these woes.

How does Aaron and other TZ connections feel that only 3% goes toward wildlife conservation?

From what I am told, many blocks that were abandoned were abandoned because the hunts at the insane prices could not be sold. Plus, the operators costs were so high (due to fees to the government) that the operators could hardly make a living.

I have the same question about the 3%.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

From: Craig Packer (cpacker@********.***) This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: Tue 12/29/15 3:26 PM
To: J Lane Easter DVM DACVS (ledvm@msn.com)

When Dennis Ikanda first worked with me, he was a reliable field assistant in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, and his Master's research paper (which I co-wrote) was quite solid. However, he became increasingly erratic during the course of his PhD studies, and though the quality of his data collection on man-eating lions (which I supervised) was still quite sound, his finished thesis was extremely disappointing, and he has not published any further scientific papers since receiving his degree. I was saddened to read his thesis and to see that he didn't understand how to perform the most basic statistical test. I tried to help him revise his thesis so that it might someday be published, but he struggled with the simplest calculations and he also became increasingly distracted by his duties at TAWIRI.
Dennis had been hired by the Tanzanian government while he was still a PhD student, and the appointment seemed to alter his behavior. His attitude towards expatriate scientists became increasingly hostile, and he often took it upon himself to inform us all that his primary obligations were to the Government, not to science. He also seemed determined to control any sort of lion research anywhere in the country.

Dennis was instrumental in the rejection of my research clearance in 2013, and he also lobbied the Director of Wildlife, Alex Songorwa, to block any independent lion surveys in any of Tanzania's hunting blocks. His statements about lion populations in Tanzania are misleading. Lion populations are well known to be declining in Tarangire and Katavi, and the Tanzanian government has made it impossible to determine what is happening in any of the hunting blocks. However, given that so many hunting blocks have been abandoned in Tanzania over the past few years owing to the overall decline of wildlife throughout the country, the situation clearly isn't good. By clinging to the ludicrous claim of 16,800 lions that was concocted five years ago, Dennis is doing a disservice to the long-term future of sport hunting in Tanzania. But it is far cheaper and easier to banish a whistleblower like myself than it is to address the fundamental economic challenges of the true conservation threats in the country.

Effective conservation management is expensive, and Tanzania's hunting industry only generates about 3% of the necessary funds. Lions are being poisoned, speared and snared throughout the country -- and most of these cases are occurring in the hunting blocks. Yes, sport hunting gives a bit of value to lions -- but at only three cents on the dollar, it's not enough to stop the decline.

I'm not sure why he is obsessing about the open grasslands of the Serengeti -- we monitored lions in the Serengeti woodlands as well as the open plains, and, until recently, the Serengeti woodland population was faring quite well -- though a two-year invasion/occupation by 300 Maasai families into the heart of the Serengeti apparently knocked back the woodlands lions in the past few years.

Dennis is clearly dedicated to continuing the cover-up of corruption in the Tanzanian hunting industry. He isn't going to admit that Tanzania is universally recognized as one of the most corrupt countries in Africa and that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism is so corrupt that the new President has so far been unable to find an honest man to serve as the new Minister of MNRT. Or that the former Director of Wildlife, Alex Songorwa, stood up in front of the gathered scientists at the TAWIRI conference in Arusha a few weeks ago and said that everyone in the WD is a crook and should be thrown in jail.

Dennis Ikanda is the perfect face of lion "research" in the Wildlife Division. It's his dream come true. And as long as he keeps out people like myself and other independent scientists, he will be the only voice in the country.

I just wish that your colleagues in the hunting community would help put pressure on countries like Tanzania to stop squandering their natural sources for the short-term benefit of a few crooked government officials. Tanzania's hunting blocks are doomed unless the situation is reversed. I've tried to get SCI to man up and confront the fact that trophy hunting will disappear with the wildlife, but they just say that it isn't their job to deal with corruption. But the only African countries with sustainable hunting are Namibia and South Africa, and neither country has anywhere near the same level of corruption as Tanzania. Our latest analysis of lion population trends across the continent suggest that it won't be long before most of Africa's remaining lions will be in southern Africa.

Craig

Craig's response to Tin Vining's post above.

When scientist are denied access I start to lose faith in the hunting industry. $125k plus non repeatable experience in africa is bound to attract corruption.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

However, given that so many hunting blocks have been abandoned in Tanzania over the past few years owing to the overall decline of wildlife throughout the country, the situation clearly isn't good.

So which TZ hunting blocks have been abandoned due to wildlife population decline? And who is to blame for this? Packer seems keen to blame the hunting industry for all these woes.

How does Aaron and other TZ connections feel that only 3% goes toward wildlife conservation?

From what I am told, many blocks that were abandoned were abandoned because the hunts at the insane prices could not be sold. Plus, the operators costs were so high (due to fees to the government) that the operators could hardly make a living.

I have the same question about the 3%.

The 3% comes from Craig not me...I can ask him to elaborate if y'all want to know how he derived it.

As to the blocks...there are several that no one wants as there is nothing there to hunt any longer. I can't remember the names but can get them easy enough. There are those who post here who can name them if they so choose to chime in.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

I have the same question about the 3%.

Of course my question was incorrectly worded - should be "that hunting makes such a small contribution to conservation"

It appears that USF&W will be at DSC at booth A9, in case anyone is interested. Not sure where A9 is, but that's what it shows on the exhibitor's list. I plan on stopping by to ask what there position is on Tanzania. I expect a direct answer; I doubt I'll get one.

I had the same question about the 3%. I suspected that there is some so called dedicated fee set aside for such government accounting and for game operations. But you know how that goes.

A more complete picture can be and is provided where a prudent and active concession operator is working across the board in a variety of ways both with his own people, the locals, and the designated government officers if there are any.

In my mind Tanzania was and is looking for ways to allocate blame on to others for them pushing the costs up to out of the park levels. It works for a while and in some spots and leaves them saying ha I told you so. But then the bottom drops out from under it too and leaves them looking for some else to assign blame to. They should bear a big portion of the blame on to themselves. But good luck with that.

quote:

As to the blocks...there are several that no one wants as there is nothing there to hunt any longer. I can't remember the names but can get them easy enough. There are those who post here who can name them if they so choose to chime in.

Swagaswaga immediately comes to mind.

Most of the depleted blocks are not from tourist hunting activities but from poaching and primarily as the direct result of concession mismanagement by their respective outfitters.

Isn't it a strange coincidence that within 2 years of the new block re-allocation exercise, more than 45 previously productive, sought-after concessions were relinquished by the new "owners"?

A very interesting set of questions for me to wake up to.
First I simply transcribed my notes. I did not conduct a cross examination of Dr. Ikanda. Regarding transparency I cannot speak to the past. Information is being provided today.
His credentials are strait forward, and as Craig Parker stated, Dennis was his undergrad.
Parker's allegation of mental stability of Dennis is unseemly. The same could probably be said about any and all of us, depends on who's doing the talking.
I note there was no denial by anyone, yet about the EU accepting Dr. Ikanda's findings.
Again, allegation's of corruption are simply that, allegations. If Craig Parker has facts in support of corruption to be found bring them forward.
When it comes to working with foreign nationals the TAWRI staff has a number of foreign nationals working and Dennis is pleased to have them working and conducting research.
USFWS personnel did not meet with Tanzania Wildlife officials. Doesn't anyone other than myself find that to be wrong?
When it comes to statistical analysis, what is the old saying, "There are liars, damned liars and statistics"
I don't know what the inference about Hilary implies. Hilary provided the introduction to Dr. Ikanda. As an aside I have hunted with Hilary four times and have been successful on all my hunts. His camps are well maintained, staff is highly competent. I would not have gone back had there been a bad experience. We have become good friends and developed a business relationship in the lodging industry. If someone has a bone to pick about Hilary, put it forward.

I forgot to make one correction on my arithmetic. There are 4000 lions in the Selous, a 43,000 square kilometer region. That equates to 10.75 lions per 1000 sq. kilometers.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
It appears that USF&W will be at DSC at booth A9, in case anyone is interested. Not sure where A9 is, but that's what it shows on the exhibitor's list. I plan on stopping by to ask what there position is on Tanzania. I expect a direct answer; I doubt I'll get one.

I talked to a USFWS agent 2? Years ago at SCI. I hope SCI, DAC, NRA keeps up those lines of communications.

Once again, it seems kind of strange that when the scientists at Panthera, Packer, et al got their way with lion hunting in Tanzania, they are unwilling to stand up and say what they were willing to say if SCI signed off on a nonbinding position paper brokered by a TV hunter/booking agent (Aaron) and an equine orthopedist (Dr. Easter).

They got their way, excepting Dr. Packer being the one vetting the ages (and reportedly being refused because he was demanding a entity run by and getting his wife a 6 figure US job running things in Tanzania if the November Conservation Force newsletter has its facts even close to correct...)

While it may have been a matter of Tanzania being dragged into it against their will, why are Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa then being treated like this, and if the results are there, what is their problem?

In return for this agreement with regards to the laws, the range states are being threatened with loss of a major portion of their hunting income, and with it the protection of Lion habitat that supposedly this agreement was to ensure... And the supposedly disinterested scientists whose only goal was the good of the lion species are aquiescing to this threat to the species they are supposedly doing everything to preserve?

Now we get a diatribe by one academic against another academic who took over his post, and it is to be taken seriously? He is quoting a statistic that he does not back up, and sounds somewhat fishy on its face. The same guy who was loudly accusing a country of corruption while (arguably) demanding it for his own?

The academics should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their internal politics to get in the way of protecting the resource. If they are such upstanding people, you would think they would be fighting this overreach.

I personally see fault on all sides here, and more so am saddened by the outcome, as it is a no win situation for wildlife, and is all based on politics; academic, personal, and governmental. It really bothers me that my government is interjecting itself where it has no role except that it feels they need to police the world if the multinational org it is part of does not do things the way our bureaucrats want.

Packer could not careless about what actually is happening in the field, unless it fits his own agenda!

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Once again, it seems kind of strange that when the scientists at Panthera, Packer, et al got their way with lion hunting in Tanzania, they are unwilling to stand up and say what they were willing to say if SCI signed off on a nonbinding position paper brokered by a TV hunter/booking agent (Aaron) and an equine orthopedist (Dr. Easter).

They got their way, excepting Dr. Packer being the one vetting the ages (and reportedly being refused because he was demanding a entity run by and getting his wife a 6 figure US job running things in Tanzania if the November Conservation Force newsletter has its facts even close to correct...)

While it may have been a matter of Tanzania being dragged into it against their will, why are Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa then being treated like this, and if the results are there, what is their problem?

In return for this agreement with regards to the laws, the range states are being threatened with loss of a major portion of their hunting income, and with it the protection of Lion habitat that supposedly this agreement was to ensure... And the supposedly disinterested scientists whose only goal was the good of the lion species are aquiescing to this threat to the species they are supposedly doing everything to preserve?

Now we get a diatribe by one academic against another academic who took over his post, and it is to be taken seriously? He is quoting a statistic that he does not back up, and sounds somewhat fishy on its face. The same guy who was loudly accusing a country of corruption while (arguably) demanding it for his own?

The academics should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their internal politics to get in the way of protecting the resource. If they are such upstanding people, you would think they would be fighting this overreach.

I personally see fault on all sides here, and more so am saddened by the outcome, as it is a no win situation for wildlife, and is all based on politics; academic, personal, and governmental. It really bothers me that my government is interjecting itself where it has no role except that it feels they need to police the world if the multinational org it is part of does not do things the way our bureaucrats want.

Mr Butler,

Very well spoken sir and I do hope we have the chance to meet one day.

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

As to the blocks...there are several that no one wants as there is nothing there to hunt any longer. I can't remember the names but can get them easy enough. There are those who post here who can name them if they so choose to chime in.

Swagaswaga immediately comes to mind.

Most of the depleted blocks are not from tourist hunting activities but from poaching and primarily as the direct result of concession mismanagement by their respective outfitters.

Isn't it a strange coincidence that within 2 years of the new block re-allocation exercise, more than 45 previously productive, sought-after concessions were relinquished by the new "owners"?

Some here predicted this after reallocation.

Mr. Butler has it correct. Can you imaging the outcry from the US if the shoe was on the other foot!
Why did USFWS personnel not meet with Tanzanian Wildlife Officials? An agency headed by non-elected individuals are making policy impacting another nation's sovereign business is just plain wrong.
I would ask everyone to contact their elected representatives in congress and ask this final rule be put on hold regarding Tanzania.

quote:

I personally see fault on all sides here, and more so am saddened by the outcome, as it is a no win situation for wildlife, and is all based on politics; academic, personal, and governmental. It really bothers me that my government is interjecting itself where it has no role except that it feels they need to police the world if the multinational org it is part of does not do things the way our bureaucrats want.

Dr. Butler,
I agree with this statement.

The whole reason Aaron & I formed the LCTF was to try to keep things from getting to this stage. I believe we all could have done better and accomplished our goal.

We (LCTF) thought to start simple and rally both sides around a common core that we could ALL agree on...the fact that there was a subset of lion that could be hunted without affecting the population with their death but benefit it with dollars towards conservation.

We actually got this accomplished with the exception of SCI which USF&WS wanted in agreement. They felt SCI endorsement was essential.

I ask all...seeing where we are today...wouldn't the SCI general membership support the adoption of a simple conservation message recommending the harvest of a species be limited to the subset that science has suggested and practice (TGTS hunting block data) has proven to be sustainable?

Wouldn't it have potentially been a better way to try and work together for the good of the species?

At this point (one I was sure back in 2010 we would arrive at without changing our course)...I certainly cannot see how it would have hurt to try.

Just for credibility...I enjoy hunting ele. Hunted elephant this year and plan to book another ele hunt in a few days.

From: Craig Packer (cpacker@******.***) This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: Wed 12/30/15 10:37 AM
To: J Lane Easter DVM DACVS (ledvm@msn.com)

You would have to ask TGTS Management about the situation in Tanzania in December 2015, but as of September the lion age assessments were still hidden behind the closed doors of the WD.

As for the 3%:

Our 2013 "Dollars and Fence" paper estimated that it costs ~$2000/km2 to maintain lions at about 50% of their potential carrying capacity in any given area. Tanzanian hunting blocks cover about 300,000 km2 and according to the NYTimes op-ed piece written by Alex Songorwa a few years ago, sport hunting generates about $15 million/yr in government fees in Tanzania. So if it takes $600 million to provide adequate protection of all the hunting blocks, the $15 million covers only 4% of the overall requirement. Further, we know that very little of this revenue is actually returned to wildlife protection, so the 3% is rather optimistic!

And it's even worse than this. My sources in Tanzania tell me that even some of the most respected members of the WD have recently engaged in a massive cover-up of the extent of elephant poaching in the country. A man I knew well -- and would have trusted completely 4 yrs ago -- forged the anti-poaching records in one of the largest hunting reserves in Tanzania, claiming that his staff had conducted thorough surveillance over the previous year -- when they had performed essentially no anti-poaching at all. I've also heard repeatedly that several of the TANAPA wardens have been deeply involved in ivory poaching.

So I'm afraid that every time someone in the West stands up and says how important sport hunting is for wildlife conservation in Tanzania, all I can think is that the sport hunting industry is being used as a convenient cover for the industrial-scale pillage of Tanzania's wildlife resources.

Every time TAHOA stands up and says they are giving 5 new Land Cruisers to the WD, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Effective conservation in Tanzania needs an entirely new model -- the scale of the problem is gigantic -- far too large to be solved by shooting a few lions at bargain-basement prices -- and the severity of corruption in the country is a colossal crime against our shared world heritage.

Craig



On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:59 AM, J Lane Easter DVM DACVS <ledvm@msn.com> wrote:

2 points came up with this continued discussion involving your response which was fairly well received...btw.

1) is the TZ aging process open and transparent to verification today?
2) can you elaborate on how you derived your 3% of hunting dollars are all that goes towards wildlife conservation?

Sincerely,
Lane

J. Lane Easter, DVM
Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons
Founding Partner & Surgeon
Performance Equine Associates
17797 U.S. Hwy. 77
POB 450
Thackerville, OK 73459
Phone: (580) 276-1600
Fax: (580) 276-1606
lane.easter@pea-texoma.com
http://www.pea-texoma.com/

J. Lane Easter, DVM, PA
P.O. Box 665
Gainesville, TX 76241
ledvm@msn.com

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Vining:
A very interesting set of questions for me to wake up to.
First I simply transcribed my notes. I did not conduct a cross examination of Dr. Ikanda. Regarding transparency I cannot speak to the past. Information is being provided today. His credentials are strait forward, and as Craig Parker stated, Dennis was his undergrad.
Parker's allegation of mental stability of Dennis is unseemly. The same could probably be said about any and all of us, depends on who's doing the talking.
I note there was no denial by anyone, yet about the EU accepting Dr. Ikanda's findings.
Again, allegation's of corruption are simply that, allegations. If Craig Parker has facts in support of corruption to be found bring them forward.
When it comes to working with foreign nationals the TAWRI staff has a number of foreign nationals working and Dennis is pleased to have them working and conducting research.
USFWS personnel did not meet with Tanzania Wildlife officials. Doesn't anyone other than myself find that to be wrong?
When it comes to statistical analysis, what is the old saying, "There are liars, damned liars and statistics"
I don't know what the inference about Hilary implies. Hilary provided the introduction to Dr. Ikanda. As an aside I have hunted with Hilary four times and have been successful on all my hunts. His camps are well maintained, staff is highly competent. I would not have gone back had there been a bad experience. We have become good friends and developed a business relationship in the lodging industry. If someone has a bone to pick about Hilary, put it forward.

Just checked with trusted sources today. Anyone is welcome to verify.

But the aging process of lions killed in Tanzania is NOT transparent and open to verification of process and methodology as of today.

Another major sticking point for USF&WS and Dr. Packer.

How to start the ball rolling in a positive direction?

If we are actually serious...I see 3 things that could be begun this show season:

1) The membership should encourage SCI to adopt and endorse The Definition of a Huntable Male Lion.

2) The Membership should encourage the major organizations (SCI & DSC) to open dialogue with TZ government to make the aging process open and transparent.

3) The Membership should encourage the major organizations (SCI & DSC) to open a dialogue with the TZ government on reinstating Dr. Packer's research clearance and ability to enter the country and verify the aging process.

If those 3 things were done...it would go a long way to putting USF&WS in a more positive frame of mind for lion trophy importation.

Then of course vote against Hillary Clinton as the Clinton Foundation is the driving force behind the ivory ban.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
From: Craig Packer (cpacker@******.***) This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: Wed 12/30/15 10:37 AM
To: J Lane Easter DVM DACVS (ledvm@msn.com)

You would have to ask TGTS Management about the situation in Tanzania in December 2015, but as of September the lion age assessments were still hidden behind the closed doors of the WD.

As for the 3%:

Our 2013 "Dollars and Fence" paper estimated that it costs ~$2000/km2 to maintain lions at about 50% of their potential carrying capacity in any given area. Tanzanian hunting blocks cover about 300,000 km2 and according to the NYTimes op-ed piece written by Alex Songorwa a few years ago, sport hunting generates about $15 million/yr in government fees in Tanzania. So if it takes $600 million to provide adequate protection of all the hunting blocks, the $15 million covers only 4% of the overall requirement. Further, we know that very little of this revenue is actually returned to wildlife protection, so the 3% is rather optimistic!

And it's even worse than this. My sources in Tanzania tell me that even some of the most respected members of the WD have recently engaged in a massive cover-up of the extent of elephant poaching in the country. A man I knew well -- and would have trusted completely 4 yrs ago -- forged the anti-poaching records in one of the largest hunting reserves in Tanzania, claiming that his staff had conducted thorough surveillance over the previous year -- when they had performed essentially no anti-poaching at all. I've also heard repeatedly that several of the TANAPA wardens have been deeply involved in ivory poaching.

So I'm afraid that every time someone in the West stands up and says how important sport hunting is for wildlife conservation in Tanzania, all I can think is that the sport hunting industry is being used as a convenient cover for the industrial-scale pillage of Tanzania's wildlife resources.

Every time TAHOA stands up and says they are giving 5 new Land Cruisers to the WD, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Effective conservation in Tanzania needs an entirely new model -- the scale of the problem is gigantic -- far too large to be solved by shooting a few lions at bargain-basement prices -- and the severity of corruption in the country is a colossal crime against our shared world heritage.

Craig



On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:59 AM, J Lane Easter DVM DACVS <ledvm@msn.com> wrote:

2 points came up with this continued discussion involving your response which was fairly well received...btw.

1) is the TZ aging process open and transparent to verification today?
2) can you elaborate on how you derived your 3% of hunting dollars are all that goes towards wildlife conservation?

Sincerely,
Lane

J. Lane Easter, DVM
Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons
Founding Partner & Surgeon
Performance Equine Associates
17797 U.S. Hwy. 77
POB 450
Thackerville, OK 73459
Phone: (580) 276-1600
Fax: (580) 276-1606
lane.easter@pea-texoma.com
http://www.pea-texoma.com/

J. Lane Easter, DVM, PA
P.O. Box 665
Gainesville, TX 76241
ledvm@msn.com

Lane you going to open a can of worms when you find out how little from hunting dollars actually goes back to conservation on public lands in africa.

Mike

So conservation effort from organised hunting is only measured in fees paid to government coffers? Well, you learn something new every day!!!!

BTW Matt,

You never told me how it was going getting ele ivory or lion trophies into Australia or if you enjoyed shooting Benelli's Super Black Eagle shotgun.

When you get OZ straightened out...why don't you get back with us...we would miss all of your wise-cracks.

I skimmed through the whole thread and did not see the latest lion info from SCI. If it is there and I missed it, sorry about that.


"How The New U.S. Rules Will Affect Lion Trophy Importation Into The U.S.

Safari Club International is doing everything possible to help members and all hunters in the face of changing U.S. Government decisions that affect the importation of lion trophies from Africa to the United States. Below is a summary of the new rules.

New Rules Affect Hunts on or after January 22, 2016.

New U.S. rules affect the importation of any trophy from an African lion harvested on or after January 22, 2016. The rules were issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Special U.S. import required.

Lions from southern and eastern African countries are considered "threatened with extinction." You cannot import a trophy into the U.S. without first getting a U.S. import permit, in addition to a CITES export permit. According to the rule, as of 2013 legal trophy hunting occurred in five southern and eastern African countries: Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.

Lions in western and central Africa are considered "endangered." According to the rule, as of 2013 legal trophy hunting occurred in three of these countries: Benin, Burkina Faso and CAR. Although the U.S. has the authority to issue permits for imports of endangered species for scientific research and enhancement of the survival of the species, they rarely do so.

The U.S. is not ready to issue trophy importation permits at this time.

Before it will issue permits for importation of trophies from lions in southern and eastern Africa, the U.S. will have to make a determination that the hunting of the lion and the importation of the trophy into the U.S. will "enhance the survival" of lions in the wild. The U.S. will most likely make this determination on a country-by-country basis.

Although the U.S. rule says that trophy hunting of lions can enhance the survival of the species, it finds that mismanagement of trophy hunting in some areas has led to unsustainable lion hunting. The U.S provides specifics about the problems that it found and makes suggestions for improvements in the management of lion hunting. This indicates the kinds of information and the types of management changes that the U.S. will need to see before it will issue permits. Since some of the changes that the US seeks could require major changes in the existing lion hunting structure in some countries, it is difficult to predict when and if the U.S. will receive the information it needs to satisfy its enhancement of survival requirements.

Captive-bred lions are also listed.

Captive-bred lions are covered by the U.S. rule. According to the rule, close to 90% of the trophies imported from Africa into the U.S. in 2013 (approximately 547 out of 629) were from lions bred and hunted in captivity in South Africa.

Permits for captive-bred lion trophies likely to be difficult to obtain.

The new rule makes clear that the U.S. does not intend to issue importation permits for captive-bred lions until it can be demonstrated that their hunting and importation enhances the survival of wild lions. The U.S. is currently of the opinion that captive-bred lion hunting and importation does not enhance species survival in the wild. The rulemaking says:

"We do not believe that the captive-lion industry currently ... reduces, or removes threats to the species. ... While it is argued that South Africa's captive-bred lion industry may reduce pressures of trophy hunting on wild South African populations, there is no substantial or peer-reviewed science to support such a claim. Likewise, there is no record or evidence to support claims that the captive-bred lion industry is supporting reintroduction into the wild in any significant way.

Lions harvested before January 22, 2016.

According to the U.S. rule, lions harvested before January 22, 2016 will not need a U.S. importation permit. Hunters should ensure that they document the date when they harvested their lion. This can be done with a hunting license, notarized letter, or similar official documentation that proves the lion was harvested before January 22, 2016.

Previously booked lion hunts.

Hunters who have lion hunts booked for dates from January 22, 2016 forward will need to obtain permits to import any lions successfully taken during these upcoming planned hunts. Since it presently is unclear if, when and from which countries the U.S. will issue importation permits in the future, SCI advises hunters to contact their outfitters to discuss their options.

What is SCI doing to protect its members' interests?

SCI's advocacy experts, including legislative, policy and legal staff, are carefully reviewing the rule to analyze strategies for potentially 1) expediting the US government's receipt of information necessary to issue permits; 2) facilitating communication between range countries and the U.S. government on lion management and conservation issues; and 3) challenging aspects of the rule. SCI will continue to update its membership on the progress of its efforts. For updates, please follow SCI's blog.

The entire 229-page U.S. rule can be read here.

The U.S. government has prepared a Fact Sheet (FAQ) on its lion rule that appears here."


What I find interesting is just how big a percentage of the total number of lions imported are pen raised/high fence lions. I knew it would be a significant portion, but the reality is that farm raised lions make up close to 90 % of the total and it seems quite clear in the mail out that the USFWS does not plan on issuing permits for the pen raised lions anytime soon.

The numbers for 2013 indicate that the actual import of wild free ranging lions was only 82 lions in total from 5 or 6 different countries.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
BTW Matt,

You never told me how it was going getting ele ivory or lion trophies into Australia or if you enjoyed shooting Benelli's Super Black Eagle shotgun.

When you get OZ straightened out...why don't you get back with us...we would miss all of your wise-cracks.

These are the type of responses that is dividing the hunting community. Sure, Matt can't import lion parts but don't throw stones when you live in a glass house ... the USA isn't far behind from that overreach.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
BTW Matt,

You never told me how it was going getting ele ivory or lion trophies into Australia or if you enjoyed shooting Benelli's Super Black Eagle shotgun.

When you get OZ straightened out...why don't you get back with us...we would miss all of your wise-cracks.

These are the type of responses that is dividing the hunting community. Sure, Matt can't import lion parts but don't throw stones when you live in a glass house ... the USA isn't far behind from that overreach.

No sir Jeff...you are wrong. I give Matt hell because he gives credence to SCI who helped cause us to get where we are today.

I started (and do a search if you don't believe me) saying back in 2010 (along with Aaron Neilson) that we would be where we are today without some changes. I sir...got off my @$$ and tried to implement those changes with people like Matt fighting me every step of the way. I believe firmly that we would not be where we are today if people like Matt and a few others imbedded with SCI had pulled their heads out.

So yeah...we are close behind OZ...thanks to the mindset of folks like Matt...and yes...I am going to point that out...as it did not have to be that way and I am hoping folks will see the light before African hunting is gone for good!

OK, now it's my fault!!!