quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
OK, now it's my fault!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Poyntman:
Gentlemen and Lane,
I've noticed that there is a misinterpretation in some of what Packer said about the 3% that misses a really big point that has carried forward about two pages and Lane your email back to him questioning is therefore incorrect.
He never said only 3% of the hunting funds go towards conservation. He said hunting only provides 3% of what HE estimates and what HE calculates as necessary
If you read it again you will see a much much bigger flaw...
What he said is based on some made up calculation based on needed funding per sq/km that the $15M (much needed dollars) hunting provides ONLY makes up WHAT HE ESTIMATES is needed....which is $600,000,000!!!!!
Thus the real question is where the FFF!!! Does he think the other magical $585,000,000 would come from and how?
Kind of missing the Forest from the trees.
The question is....aside from the bonafide $15,000,000 solidly contributed by HUNTERS..specifically what else does contribute and specifically how much towards the magical $600M?
Should we have Trump summon some Mexicans to build a Great Wall ?

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Lane,

I agree with your three proposed steps toward a solution, but would add one.

Can anyone figure out how to get rid of the Chinese influence in Africa?

quote:

When GTZ ran the Selous Conservation Project (SCP) in the mid 90's, they retained 50% of the revenue generated by the reserve, which was predominantly from hunting, which came to about $5-6million pa. Scouts were disciplined and motivated, poaching was under check, roads were opened and maintained, reserve equipment was functioning, boundaries were demarcated and patrolled and generally things were pretty good - Fujotupu can confirm?

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
The hunting sector in TZ is small....about 40-50 active operators at the most.......so growing the total revenue generation from its current $15million to something more significant like say $100 million would require some serious gymnastics! However, placing restrictions such as trophy bans and transport bans, etc surely aren't helping the sector to grow? So how do all the experts at USFWS and org's such as Panthera et alia expect to bridge the revenue gap?

I argue that the onus of funding large scale conservation efforts SHOULD NOT be placed on the private sector alone (read hunting sector), it should be the responsibility of the Government Agency first and foremost. Currently, Dr. Packer and USFWS seem to advocate that hunters should fund it all..... which is impossible using the stats in my first paragraph!

When GTZ ran the Selous Conservation Project (SCP) in the mid 90's, they retained 50% of the revenue generated by the reserve, which was predominantly from hunting, which came to about $5-6million pa. Scouts were disciplined and motivated, poaching was under check, roads were opened and maintained, reserve equipment was functioning, boundaries were demarcatied and patrolled and generally things were pretty good - fujotupu can confirm? Back then hunting revenue was just under $30 million! Some major outfitters mentioned spend around $1.5 million annually on conservation for up to 7 blocks and generally the wildlife numbers are steady there.

So, like Poyntman stated, I too question the figure presented of the$600 million as an average requirement. The focus to fix the deficiencies of the 'system' should be towards creating patriotism, integrity, discipline and passion towards wildlife amongst those charged to protect them and a jolly great dose of Political will! Not an easy task indeed. Placing hurdles on the private sector which impacts revenue streams ain't the way to go IMO!

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Vining:
In interest of fairness. Dr. Dennis Ikanda has written a rebuttal to statements earlier on this post.

REBUTTAL TO CRAIG PACKERS REMARKS
This is a rebuttal to Dr. Packer’s remarks on Dr Dennis Ikanda. I began by demonstrating that I am a renowned lion expert, well trained and with research experience spanning over 16yrs in Tanzania. I have actively published more than10 good scientific publications in journals, books and written numerous technical reports on lions and elephants after completion of my PhD in 2009 (see www.researchgate.com). My thesis was one of the best written and defended in 2009 at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (www.ntnu.no) under the supervision of one of Norway’s top ecology professors. I supervise/coordinate national lion surveys, lion trophy monitoring and offer scientific advice to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism on the implementation of the National Wildlife Policy. I am a member of the African Lion Working Group, IUCN cat specialist group and member of a CITES expert panel on the evaluation of Review of significant trade. I consult closely with Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya, and Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe Wildlife Authorities etc. on lion and other large carnivore conservation issues. I have featured in many lion conservation documentary films throughout the years, some on Dr Packer’s recommendation. Dr. Packer may be right about poor statistics and write up in his biased opinion, but that’s the past. Things have changed. My CV speaks for itself. I do not rely on lobbying nor tarnishing other’s reputation in order to gain self recognition.
The role of wildlife science in Tanzania is to offer sound, result- oriented advice to wildlife management authorities (TANAPA/WD). TAWIRI is charged with the solicitation of such info within the circles of research scientists working in Tanzania, including ‘expatriate scientists’. Advice provided by TAWIRI leads to crucial (and sensitive) decision making which affects all facets of conservation, trade and industry. This calls for careful selection and not every research finding is taken for advice. Unfortunately, much of Dr. Packer’s recent science is speculative, leaving very little room for its incorporation into Tanzania conservation planning and efforts. This has been difficult for Dr Packer to understand. Nevertheless, we have taken upon his science on a number of issues.
As a government research scientist, I am obligated to scrutinize research applications/activities and provide advice to higher authority. Where it is deemed a research application has negative/damaging motives, especially to Tanzania’s wildlife Policy, I have not been hesitant to give a negative opinion. And Dr. Packer is right; my loyalty in this respect is to the Tanzania Government. We have had scientists come to Tanzania on numerous occasions with such intentions, some even paid off by Rights Groups—speaking of corruption. Sadly these are often affiliated to Dr Packer, in one way or another. Perhaps this forum can help Dr Packer to comprehend this.
Tanzania is fertile ground for wildlife conservation research. Many so called ‘expatriate scientists’ have successfully built their careers here over the years, such as Dr. Packer. However, occasionally some have run out of scientific ideas and diverted their mindset to trivial issues. Unfortunately, they have been asked to leave; as Tanzania is no ground for idle minds. This is sadly the path followed by Dr. Packer, despite of him being repeatedly counseled by Dr. Dennis Ikanda and the TAWIRI administration about his behavior. Dr Packer has been expelled from doing research in Tanzania for obvious reasons. In the process, he was furnished with a letter, clearly stipulating reasons why. In an open, transparent manner, it would benefit this forum if he can display this letter and let everyone determine for themselves if Dr Dennis Ikanda has had any instrumental role.
Lions have ample, protected space in Tanzania-free from human activity and negative impacts. Exception is for a mere 5% of the lion population falling completely outside of the PA network. Nevertheless, given the size of PAs, hard edge effects resulting from human-lion conflict have minimal (if not negligible) effects. This is shown by efforts under management authority (WD/TAWIRI) in cooperation with conservation partners in highlighting the status. National lion surveys are taking place within protected areas. Two key lion ranges were censused (Selous, Maasai Steppe) in 2014-5, and Ruaha and Moyowosi, Katavi are already lined up for 2016. Conservation NGOs (some funded by USAID) are working closely with local wildlife authorities to resolve conflicts at the human-lion interface, with positive and promising outcomes. In Dr Packer’s own scientific findings and take up by TAWIRI, lion trophy harvests are far below a threshold of 1/2000 km2. In fact in the past 4-5yrs, only a quarter of the figure has been harvested annually. Dr Packer and I estimate that at its worst, 200 lions are killed annually through conflict and Problem Animal Control. We also estimate about 15% of those will be adult males, of huntable age (approx. 30 lions). Even if this figure was to be added to the current harvest rate, still the harvest is well below Dr Packer’s threshold (estimated at 200/yr). So how can Dr Packer insist that lion hunting is unsustainable? I have no personal interest in the hunting industry, but let’s be honest and truthful with the threat posed to lions through trophy hunting in Tanzania.
Corruption is a plague in every society-America included. It is not endemic to the Wildlife Division nor Tanzania at large. While it appears to be a Tanzanian anthem consistently ringing in Dr. Packer’s mind, it should perhaps be highlighted as to what exactly amounts to a corrupt practice. Wouldn’t Dr Packer’s entering into Serengeti National Park illegally (in violation of his ban), and making a few thousand bucks from filming-whilst depriving TANAPA their share constitute to corruption? Wouldn’t Dr Packer’s provisioning of false data to the IUCN on lion trends in Katavi in order to speculate a decline for Tanzania constitute to corruption? Doesn’t Dr. Packer’s secret attempts to misinform the USFWS and EU SRG about lion hunting in order to sabotage the industry and the Wildlife Division constitute to corruption?
My final comment is for the hunting fraternity to encourage the USFWS to meet with wildlife authorities in Tanzania regarding its deliberations on lion trophy imports. It doesn’t benefit the lion nor American hunters for the USFWS to make such a one-sided decision. Furthermore, the hunting fraternity should consider taking legal action against Dr Packer for his bad deeds. In the meantime, Tanzania will share its experience and endeavor to see other SADC member countries expel him from doing research elsewhere in Africa in very near future.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
... but I am afraid the hunting industry is too fractured still for this to work anytime soon.

Alas...we will fight amongst ourselves, poachers will kill more wildlife, squatters will take more habitat, and the lion and the ele will loose in the end...African hunting will be gone.

Shame...when it could be solved...but this thread is evidence that we will never unite and overcome.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
... but I am afraid the hunting industry is too fractured still for this to work anytime soon.

Alas...we will fight amongst ourselves, poachers will kill more wildlife, squatters will take more habitat, and the lion and the ele will loose in the end...African hunting will be gone.

Shame...when it could be solved...but this thread is evidence that we will never unite and overcome.

Like not having a constructive conservation with Matt because lions can't be imported into Aus? Your responses to Matt and the quoted post are hypocritical.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ledvm:
Big sigh from me!

This thread has turned out to be just like the politics were back in 2012 and the reason I dissolved the LCTF. Everyone wants to fight instead of compromising for the good of the lion.

Lane,

Some of us are still fighting and winning the war in the bush. It takes a lot of effort and perseverance. My game is on the increase and along with it comes the Lions. However I have been at it everyday for almost 6 years now.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Dr. Easter

I do think that you have hit on one issue here, in that the hunting groups are not very interested with compromise and are more interested in a fight.

Quite frankly, why would we not?

We have been the ones attacked and have had little role in just how things are done, other than paying ever increasing fees and being constantly bothered by yet more overreach.

I do not know of anyone (and this includes some SCI powers that be) who would not be willing to sign off on a position statement on what a desirable trophy would be.

I can see that SCI would not be interested in being seen to take sides against a group of hunters who are doing a legal activity (shooting of domestic livestock) and that was part of the reluctance to sign off on the definition, but I am reading between the lines there. They are trying to be a group for all hunters, and the folks who hunt behind fences are part of that... A rather NRA like action, no?

Honestly, I think your style of presentation did turn a number of people off, lord knows I was one.

That being said, why are Dr. Hunter and Panthera not joining in on our side at this point, with the caveat that we need a six year rule? I can see why Dr. Packer is not, even if you claim he is not anti hunting, he sure shows odd ways of that. Given his recent behavior, he had the chance to take the high road and did not. (BTW, as a tenured professor at the U of MN, his livelihood is not affected much by Tanzania revoking his access there... His non research earnings, well, yes, but isn't that some of the "corruption" that he is upset about...?)

I certainly have donated to John Jackson of Conservation Force on this issue. I think he will try and get the scientists to state this and broker something with USFWS, and from what you have written you talk with him as well. Maybe that behind the scenes work is something that the LCTF would have been better at, I don't know.

I do know that both sides need to work together, and us hunters providing funding, the operators providing access, the government making sure things were done according to treaty, and the researchers providing expert knowledge with respect for each other's positions worked in the past, and if we all step back and see this, it should again in the future.

Unfortunately, trust has been broken in so many areas. We need a new start, and it seems that the political process here in the US is the biggest obstacle to that.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

Like not having a constructive conservation with Matt because lions can't be imported into Aus? Your responses to Matt and the quoted post are hypocritical.

Jeff,
Maybe you are correct maybe my post to Matt was below the belt...but...I was trying to make a point.

The point is:

Matt wants to carry on the same old tired road we have been on for decades ending us up where we are today which I predicted back in 2010. Matt further states he is very active in Australia politics. My point in revealing where Australia is today was to show that Matt's way had already lost the battle there...far ahead and far more advanced than what it is in the States.

Could I have done it more tactfully...probably so and point taken!

But then again...I support Don Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

Like not having a constructive conservation with Matt because lions can't be imported into Aus? Your responses to Matt and the quoted post are hypocritical.

Jeff,
Maybe you are correct maybe my post to Matt was below the belt...but...I was trying to make a point.

The point is:

Matt wants to carry on the same old tired road we have been on for decades ending us up where we are today which I predicted back in 2010. Matt further states he is very active in Australia politics. My point in revealing where Australia is today was to show that Matt's way had already lost the battle there...far ahead and far more advanced than what it is in the States.

Could I have done it more tactfully...probably so and point taken!

But then again...I support Don Trump.

What pray tell is 'Matts way'?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Is English your second language Lane?

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Vining:
Well folks we have pretty well cussed and discussed what USFWS has done and what we in the hunting community have or have not done.
What is left is the question. How do we move forward in terms of getting USFWS to issue permits? It would seem we have to get USFWS to accept that some countries (like Tanzania) have good management programs in place and have established sound conservation practices. So how do we collectively get our message forward?
Now is the time to come forward with clear cogent thought and ideas to implement.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
I think you misread a lot of things Lane - and concoct bullshit arguments.