ALF:

In Tanzania the land is government property - you may lease land from the government, tenure of which is now 33 yrs for agriculture, livestock and general development; you may not OWN land. And....once out of a township, there are still umpteen places where you can still take a piss (and more if you wish) in the middle of the road with not a soul in sight!

There are no game ranches in this neck of the woods and I damn well hope it remains that way!

We have hunting reserves (which are NOT put and take), Wildlife Management Areas (similar to the CAMPFIRE but nowhere nearly as well managed), Wildlife Conservation Areas (where hunting has certain restrictions as far as residential hunting is concerned) and lastly the Open Areas (where hunting can be considered as a "free for all") though some can be quite productive.

Oh, I forgot the most important: none of these areas have a single strand of wire, high or low.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
There are very few places in Africa today where if you get out to take a piss behind a bush someone does not pop out to take a look at you.

That has not been my experience in Cameroon(very high population density) or in Bots, Namibia, Zambia, Tanzania or even Zimbabwe.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
There are very few places in Africa today where if you get out to take a piss behind a bush someone does not pop out to take a look at you.

That has not been my experience in Cameroon(very high population density) or in Bots, Namibia, Zambia, Tanzania or even Zimbabwe.

One of the concessions I hunt in the Kafue is over 2.5 million acres and uninhabited by man. The adjoining concessions and private areas probably amassing another 1.5 million is also vacant.

Not to mention the adjoining 22,000 square kilometre National Park.

Take a piss? I could do a big crap on the main road and it would be still there the following season.

Fairgame:

Your concessions are vacant why? ( well they are not actually vacant because they have tribal villages ) Because they have tilte to them that precludes human habitation other than the traditional tribal groups and villages . ie they are in effect reserves

if you are hunting on consessions around the Kafue then you are hunting GMA.s not so?

So which are you hunting?

I have hunted Sichifulo, Bilili, Nkala, Namwala, Mumbwa west. and Mulobezi.

They all had villages. As I recall Sichifulo had the biggest habitation.

So which are you hunting?

Yes indeed the vast wild areas of Africa (be it private, Communal or government controlled) are becoming a rare commodity. Mainly due to the human population explosion. This issue alone is the main threat to the Wildlife that relies on these areas. Yet very little is said about this growing problem with all the flack going to the few trophy hunters that are providing for the few areas left.

Alf,
I'm trying to see your point?

There are huge tracts of uninhabited land in Tanzania with not a village to be seen. Some are "reserves" indeed (others not) but what is the difference? They still need to be financially viable or else they will be degazetted and eventually occupied.

By TZ law, all Game Controlled Areas (GCA's) are supposed to be free of human settlements and activities; most are not but yet some still are. The Gov has re-enforced the law and will not allow new settlements in GCA's that are currently uninhabited. Without hunitng in these GCA's Gov would have degazetted them long ago and the plough would have taken its course.

Bwanamich:

My original point was and still is that we must not think it is only hunting that has the ability to conserve.

There are many very successful conservation actions in place that do very well without hunting.

This off course does not imply that hunting is not needed, not at all, it is a very important tool in the hands of any conservationist ( if applied to the benefit of the conservation action.)

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Fairgame:

Your concessions are vacant why? ( well they are not actually vacant because they have tribal villages ) Because they have title to them that precludes human habitation other than the traditional tribal groups and villages . ie they are in effect reserves

if you are hunting on concessions around the Kafue then you are hunting GMA.s not so?

So which are you hunting?

I have hunted Sichifulo, Bilili, Nkala, Namwala, Mumbwa west. and Mulobezi.

They all had villages. As I recall Sichifulo had the biggest habitation.

So which are you hunting?

I speak of Lunga Luswishi, Lunga Busanga and Kasonso. Lunga Busanga has a small population in the north otherwise the communities are outside of the GMA's. The vast Kafue National Park has no community to speak of.

The private lands of Mushingashi and ourselves are the same and here there is only one small community which is outside of the hunting area.

All those you mention do have a serious encroachment problems with the exception of Mumbwa west. Sadly you can no longer hunt Bilili and Greg Butler is trying to resuscitate Sichifulo.

Cheers

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I constantly hear this argument that conservation is only possible when hunting is involved?

Now if this is so how can it be that large conservancies have been created by private individuals where no hunting for financial gain takes place ?

All of the so called big 5 reserves in the South African low veld operate under these premises.

Alf,

I agree that conservation is only possible if hunting is involved. OTOH, hunting is not a factor in preservation a la the bunny hugger's ideal situation.

All the large conservancies that I know of either hunt on the property or they capture live game to sell the trophies directly to the 'put-'n-take' hunting outfitters to be hunted by their misinformed clients! The females and non-trophy males are sold to newly established hunting farms as starting stock for eventual hunting.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The "vast empty plains " everyone is referring to here are basically reserves, for them to be empty they have to have a habitation restriction and human activity restriction on them. All of the "wild palces" hunted by visitor hunters are linked to this provision.

.

None of this changes anything here! It doesn’t change the fact that hunting only takes the surplus of any species and differentiates between viable populations of a species and huntable populations. No matter if people live on a concession or not the animals and habitat benefit from the money paid for concession fees, trophy fees, and the quotas bought by the safari companies.

Where on private land the animals do get protection from the owner but all profit from those animals goes to the land owner, and when he sells a hunt or sells surplus animals the profit still only benefits the land owner. The animals sold off usually go to another land owner to sell for hunting , again profit only benefits that land owner. However the revenue generated in both cases to the country in tourist dollars is a benefit to the GDP.

The fact is hunting especially in the reserves pays a greater volume of the money spent on that hunting to the state for manning game scout groups who not only protect the huntable by making sure quotas are adhered to, for those species, but protects the endangered species as well. Even if people do not live on the concessions, the surrounding villages get day work and a lot of meat from the animals taken in the hunting concessions, especially where elephant are concerned. This also boosts the GDP, and also guards the habitat from charcoal burners, and poachers who care nothing for endangered species for anything other than meat and/or ivory or horn to sell for private profit.

As I said hunting is not the end all of making sure the endangered and the huntable species continue to exist long term, and protect habitat from plows and getto developments which are the death knell for all species!

The parks for the zebra stripped rovers, full of camera nuts do not contribute anywhere near the amount of money available to the locals, or to benefit the game departments that protect animals anywhere in the country. All things that protect animals and habitat and supply funds for schools and clinics and food for starving people without slaughtering every living thing on Earth combined are good, but I assure you the bulk of what is best for all wildlife regardless of being hunted or not, is paid for by the the hunting community world wide. No other group even comes close, or cares more for all wildlife than hunters!

The biggest impact the private owned hunting places like in RSA have on wild life is the breading of once endangered species, but most, like Texas in the USA, these animals are pinned in and most of the animals are not in their traditional homes, but at least were not lost for all time.

All these things are good in combination for the continued survival of all species, but the constant in-fighting between these different factions is NOT GOOD, and is used by the anti hunting groups to divide the only people, the hunters, who really care that all wildlife, not just hunted species, survive for our generations to yet be born.

........................................................................................................................

MacD37:

Some of your assertions are pure fallacy!

In South Africa game is not "pinned" to areas that is not their traditional home. The Game ordinances do not allow it. They will not issue permits to bring Exotic game ie game not tradionally found in an ecozone not deemed traditionally natural to the species.

In the past ther have been instances where farmers did this and they soon found that not only did the game not thrive by Nature conservation would not give them permits to allow for the hunting of those animals.

We must not forget that all movement of game, hunting of game buying and selling of game in SA fall under the jurisdiction of the law, two in fact and without permits nothing that involves game or game products can occur.

As to the impact or not of hunting vs that of what you call camera nuts.

I have no beef with the idea that in terms of a overall ecological impact that ecotourism, per dollar gained has a bigger footprint than hunting for the same financial gain. ie to generate the same income you need way way more tourists than hunters and by this then the overall impact on the system is way larger with the ecotourism group. In the late 80's Tony Thompkinson then of Natal Parks did an excellent study showing the economic benefit and footprint impact of hunting vs ecotourism in a managed park in this case Mkuze.

But now what about this scenario.

Private owners buy property, they do so with income generated by other means, they utilize the property purely for own use, no tourism for money, no hunting for money!, They may hunt for own use and for pot permit purposes. They club together and form their own game reserve, still own use, no hunting no tourism. Not only do they club together they form the largest privately owned reserve in South Africa.

How does this support the stance that without hunting game will not and can not survive.

The reserve btw is the Klaserie. Started in 1969 when a group of private persons clubbed their farms together, dropped their fences and founded what is the biggest single private game reserve in SA.

Today they do do limited hunting for financial gain, they even have a fully registered and inspected abbatoir, there are various up market lodges within their boundries.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
MacD37:

Some of your assertions are pure fallacy!

.

ALF That may be so, as I know you are a very intelligent person, and you live in RSA where most of the privatly owned animals live as well!

I never professed to know everything and I have no problem with land owners who have the money, and desire to make themselves private game reserves! That certainly does help the animals on their property to sustain long term viability. Those places could also use limited hunting to take off the surplus, while generating income as well to mitigate their cost as well. They prefer not to, and that is their privilage with private property.

That is a good thing, but what does it do for game animals, and in fact all wildlife world wide that do not live on private property and are not privatly owned who must pay their own way or be replaced by farms and mud villages.

The fact is these privately owned animals do not pay their own way the land owners do, sort of like zoos. No benefit is derived to the rest of the worlds wildlife from these places! IOW how does the private ownership of animals fenced within private property that is not hunted, or even visited by the public help with the onslaught of animal rights folks who want all animals as pets that they can drive though the reserve and look at and take pictures. The hunting community do not hunt in private zoos, and the survival of wildlife that is in open hunting land is a form of land use that depends on hunting to pay the bills of leaving this land open and with pristine populations, and healthy habitat. That is the fight that is being waged world wide. In this case if the game does not pay its way the land will be sold off, to the plow, and Ghetto developments, and poaching will wipe out the wildlife and burn the trees for charcoal in just a few years.

In the case of the private places you describe where nobody except the land owners ever see them, and the animals do not produce income to anyone. These animals may as well be extinct because they are to the rest of the world. Even the Ntl parks, at least, do let folks see the animals and they pay to do so, while paying the salaries of the park rangers also traveling to that country and spending money that helps the GDP.

The private preserves contributes nothing to the fight to be able to utilize the surplus of game species to keep the population in balance with the carrying capacity of the habitat, while also contributing to defering some of the game departments cost of policing the areas for poachers. That you will say is done by the land owner on his property, well the recent rhino plight seems to have negated that idea! Game will pay it's way one way or the other, I'd much rather it be with legal hunting, taking the surplus, and contributing to the GDP of the country than have the wildlife in a jail where nobody ever sees them, and the surplus turned into Biltong or sold to another jail with no visitors or some of the put and take so-called hunting farms.

All I'm trying to say here is there is nothing wrong in having a private zoo, or if you prefer a very large zoo called a preserve, but lets not pretend that does anything to help in the fight against the folks who want to outlaw hunting world wide. In all other places the wildlife must pay their own way or they will be replaced by goats and milk cows, and vegetable farms, or mud villages, and poachers biltong and smoking racks. Then we will see the result of the way the animal rights folks want things done!

.............................................................................

Just to butt in and take things to where reality actually comes in, the Animal Rights groups do not just want to stop hunting, They Intend To STOP ALL Human interactions/manipulations of animal in ANY form, World Wide.

No Zoos, No Farms/Ranches, No Pets, No Animals contained in ANY type of enclosures regardless of size.

The only way wild animals, as a whole, are going to survive, is if it can be shown that those animals have an actual monetary value, on our modern world, Priceless to many individuals is translated into Worthless.

The masses do not/can not see the need for space for animals or doing anything to perpetuate them. This is all just my opinion, sorry for interuppting.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Bwanamich:

My original point was and still is that we must not think it is only hunting that has the ability to conserve.

There are many very successful conservation actions in place that do very well without hunting.

This off course does not imply that hunting is not needed, not at all, it is a very important tool in the hands of any conservationist ( if applied to the benefit of the conservation action.)

Totally agree with you

Wilbur Smith was a highly acclaimed & popular writer of fiction. He also had a political agenda, which is obvious in how his fiction sometimes portrayed anecdotes & events in ways very differnt to factual history. But then .... it was just fiction.

It would have been even more interesting if Wilbur Smith had used the same logic (originally quoted in this thread) to compare the fate of wildlife in the US or Australia or various other colonies in the last 150 years.

Why is it that Africa still has extensive areas that have huntable / sustainable populations of game while the US has lost grizzly hunting in the lower 48 & much of Big Horn sheep, wolf & Bison hunting in the last 150 years? After all, the US did not have to worry about the impact of indigenous people on wildlife for the last 120 years.

Why is it that countries in Central Asia still have extensive areas that are huntable with sustainable populations of indigenous game such as Argali, Ibex, wolf, etc. but not to the same extent in the US lower 48 states for grizzly, wolf, WILD bison & sheep?

If you look back into the history of one of the greatest hunting traditions - Colonial India - you will see that most of the great hunting areas were private reserves of some local royalty. Yes the human population was originally low and there were extensive tracts of jungle that was not penetrated by people & so there was no poaching by local villagers. In the 1930s there were over 30,000 tigers and by the 1970s the number came down to less than 2000!

Habitat destruction is the real issue - and this is largely due to population growth and the impact of the Industrial Revolution - which was spread rapidly by colonialism. North & South America have exploded populations in the last 200 years and hence habitat has been destroyed along with the resident wildlife. No differnt in Africa or anywhere else.

It has just taken a bit longer for the Industrial Revolution to arrive in Deep Dark Africa and it has arrived in a differnt & more modern guise.

If one were to accept that the Industrial Revolution (how ever it was spread) & population growth were the main causes of habitat destructions, then the principle applies to all human society & not just to Africa. Just the time frame is differnt.

The impact of the Industrial Revolution & (it associated historical / demographic derivatives) on the extinction of not just animals, but entire human tribes around the world is a differnt debate!

It would have been even more intersting reading if Wilber Smith had explored those avenues of intellectual and historical debate.

quote:

Why is it that Africa still has extensive areas that have huntable / sustainable populations of game while the US has lost grizzly hunting in the lower 48 & much of Big Horn sheep, wolf & Bison hunting in the last 150 years? After all, the US did not have to worry about the impact of indigenous people on wildlife for the last 120 years.

You are kidding????? Have you never read any factual accounts of the settling of the U.S. by Europeans?

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Wilbur Smith was a highly acclaimed & popular writer of fiction. He also had a political agenda, which is obvious in how his fiction sometimes portrayed anecdotes & events in ways very differnt to factual history. But then .... it was just fiction.

It would have been even more interesting if Wilbur Smith had used the same logic (originally quoted in this thread) to compare the fate of wildlife in the US or Australia or various other colonies in the last 150 years.

Like a lot of leftie native race haters, they like to dwell on historical times of eg 150 years ago, rather than what is happening right now.

If we examine India as an example the huge decreases in forests and wildlife has happened since European rule ceased and as Wilbur Smith would put it, the "swarming black humanity" took over.

Same with Africa. MASSIVE decreases in wildlife numbers since the end of European rule.

As for Australia, we have MORE wildlife populations for many species today than existed when the Aboriginals "ruled". For example kangaroo populations up to the mid-60 millions of roos. More roos in the state of NSW today than existed in the whole of Australia 200 years ago. Why? Because of modern development, water troughs, bores, wells, dams, piped water in many places where water would not exist for six months of the year.

But don't bother educating yourself with facts, Naki.

Or understand the debate here using this fictional illustration is the current times, not whining about 150 years ago.

quote:

Habitat destruction is the real issue - and this is largely due to population growth ....

Yep exactly what Wilbur Smith refers to, the "swarming ... humanity" whom just want to convert wildlife habitat to subsistence farming. The reason why giving wildlife value is a key to competing against the desire of the locals to plant wasteful, uneconomic subsistence farming plots on wildlife reserves.

quote:

It has just taken a bit longer for the Industrial Revolution to arrive in Deep Dark Africa and it has arrived in a differnt & more modern guise.

Ah, "industrial revolution" in Africa taking over wildlife areas?

Never heard goat herding, and subsistence maize farming plots being called the "industrial revolution".

Hell going by that "logic" Zimbabwe having been changed from the "bread basket" of Southern Africa, an exporter of food to the neighbouring 'native' ruled countries, changed to a newly "naki industrial revolution paradise" of over grazed goat 'deserts', deforestation, wildlife poaching and uneconomic wasteful subsistence farms farmed by lazy subsistence farmers ...

The many millions of Zimbabweans living overseas should understand what an "industrial revolution paradise" they have left behind per the Naki - an Indian who lives in New Zealand ...

quote:

It would have been even more intersting reading if Wilber Smith had explored those avenues of intellectual and historical debate.

Really I doubt he has explored your "logic".

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Why is it that Africa still has extensive areas that have huntable / sustainable populations of game while the US has lost grizzly hunting in the lower 48 & much of Big Horn sheep, wolf & Bison hunting in the last 150 years? After all, the US did not have to worry about the impact of indigenous people on wildlife for the last 120 years.

You are kidding????? Have you never read any factual accounts of the settling of the U.S. by Europeans?

CHC

Naki would not know a fact if it bit him.

SSR

quote:

Hell going by that "logic" Zimbabwe having been changed from the "bread basket" of Southern Africa, an exporter of food to the neighbouring 'native' ruled countries, changed to a newly "naki industrial revolution paradise" of over grazed goat 'deserts', deforestation, wildlife poaching and uneconomic wasteful subsistence farms farmed by lazy subsistence farmers ...

Most of those farms whose productivity formed the greater part of the "breadbasket" were owned and managed by whom?....yes, indigenous Zimbos but which ones, seeing there are two distinct groups?....well I guess the lucky winner is the one who has led it to ruin!

Yup, and us south of the Limpopo have gone from a net food exporter, to a net food importer. Goin down. Hurray for socialism.

quote:

Originally posted by Scriptus:
Yup, and us south of the Limpopo have gone from a net food exporter, to a net food importer. Goin down. Hurray for socialism.

Socialism is NOT the answer.

I know you already know that.

Wow! Naki, I guess I must mention that many people I know from what is now zimbabwe still call themselves Rhodesians after the change. If not for hunting revenue, where would the country be? This has become a thread that should be in the PF. No offense, but only respect for those that have stayed in zim. Without you, there is no telling the current state.

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
Wow! Naki, .... This has become a thread that should be in the PF. ...

No it isn't. Nakitroll should just stay on the PF with his bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Scriptus:
Yup, and us south of the Limpopo have gone from a net food exporter, to a net food importer. Goin down. Hurray for socialism.

Socialism is NOT the answer.

I know you already know that.

Yup! Seriously facetious.

Quote: DCS Member: If not for hunting revenue, where would the country be?
Well, the South African Government [really the ANC] gives them cheap petrol and electricity [if it ever gets paid for is anybody's guess] and, pardon me, wipes cousin Bob's arse. We must not forget that the Chinese colonialists are helping out too, as well as the Malaysians who doctor cousin Bob when he is feeling a little poorly.

Ok - so who were the swarming ... humanity that caused the extinction of the European bison & brown bear in much of Europe?

Nitox has his political agenda - he shut this thread on his own websit because of challenges he could not face. Now the troll is opening this thread on AR after 3.5 years!!

Ok - you do not want to talk about 150 years ago! Let us talk about right now - who is responsible for the oil field disasters in the Gulf of Mexico? Which swarming...humanity? Is that not a consequence of the industrial revolution and it myriad derivatives? How many oil field disasters have affected the environment in the last 40 years? Which swarming ... humanity caused it?

Intellectual honesty is a BIG issue all over the world. Rupert Murdoch's empire is not the only meia entity that is a threat to our freedom of speech and expression. It is not the only corrupt and dishonest media entity.

Ultimately the truth will come out!

quote:

CHC

Naki would not know a fact if it bit him.

I am beginning to realize that.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Ok - so who were the swarming ... humanity that caused the extinction of the European bison & brown bear in much of Europe?

Nitox has his political agenda - he shut this thread on his own websit because of challenges he could not face. Now the troll is opening this thread on AR after 3.5 years!!

Ok - you do not want to talk about 150 years ago! Let us talk about right now - who is responsible for the oil field disasters in the Gulf of Mexico? Which swarming...humanity? Is that not a consequence of the industrial revolution and it myriad derivatives? How many oil field disasters have affected the environment in the last 40 years? Which swarming ... humanity caused it?

Intellectual honesty is a BIG issue all over the world. Rupert Murdoch's empire is not the only meia entity that is a threat to our freedom of speech and expression. It is not the only corrupt and dishonest media entity.

Ultimately the truth will come out!

Naki

Just a question, do you have one of those Indian high pitched whines when you talk and get excited?

BTW everyone knows you are a liar and also more than a bit irrational.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:

Just a question, do you have one of those Indian high pitched whines when you talk and get excited?

BTW everyone knows you are a liar and also more than a bit irrational.

aahh sheet!