Taken from AfricaHunting

SOMETHING TO CHEW ON

A new study of game management areas in Zambia highlights the importance of the meat provided to local communities by hunting outfitters.
by Diana Rupp

When hunters travel to Africa for a safari hunt, their friends back home often wonder what happens to the meat of the animals they kill. If you’ve been on an African safari, you know that some of the meat is eaten in camp. But most of it, especially in the poorest and most rural areas of the continent, is given to the local communities, where it is a crucial addition to the otherwise protein-deficient diet of much of the populace.

Until now, there have been few, if any, scientific studies attempting to quantify the amount of game meat that goes to local communities and the impact it has. That has changed with a just-published study of three game management areas (GMAs) in several regions of Zambia that assessed the quantity and impact of sport-hunted meat provided to the local communities between 2004 and 2011.

The study, entitled “Provisioning of Game Meat to Rural Communities as a Benefit of Sport Hunting in Zambia,” was authored by Dr. Paula A. White and Jerrold L. Belant and appeared in the online scientific journal PLOS One, published February 18, 2015. White is the Director of the Zambia Lion Project and a Senior Research Fellow at the UCLA Center for Tropical Research. Belant is an Associate Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Management at Mississippi State University and Director of the Carnivore Ecology Laboratory. White, who conceived of the study and conducted the on-the-ground data collection, is extremely familiar with the GMAs in Zambia, having spent more than ten seasons doing carnivore research in the region.

As part of their lease agreements with the Zambia Wildlife Authority, hunting operators in Zambia are required to give to the local communities in their GMAs more than 50 percent of the meat obtained by their hunting clients. How much does that amount to? The study found that the rural communities located within each GMA where sport hunting occurred received an average of more than 13,277 pounds of fresh game meat annually from hunting operators. Extrapolating the results across all thirty GMAs in Zambia, the study estimated 286,000 pounds of fresh game meat are provided annually by the sport hunting industry to rural communities in Zambia.

[​IMG]
Game meat drying for biltong at a hunting camp in Africa. The new study quantifies how important such meat is to people who live near safari camps.

The study authors also wanted to find out how well the outfitters were complying with their requirement to provide this meat, so they compared the amount of meat expected based on the quotas for each GMA versus the amounts that the communities actually received during a three-year segment of the study period. In seven of eight annual comparisons of these three GMAs, the amount of meat the communities received exceeded what was required. The meat donations occurred throughout the May-to-November hunting season, but the largest amount of meat was given to the communities in September and October, which is about the same time rural Zambians are most likely to run short of food since their crops are not yet ready to harvest.

The estimated annual cost to purchase the equivalent of 286,000 pounds of fresh game meat would be more than US$600,000, not including butchering and delivery costs. Using an estimate of 20 percent protein per 100 grams of game meat, the meat from the GMAs provided the equivalent of 519,084 people-days of protein per year. This figure is based on the recommended daily protein requirement of 50 grams per day.

To put this in perspective, studies show that 48 percent of Zambia's population is classified as undernourished, and their recommended daily protein requirements are rarely met. Most Zambians actually get less than 20 percent of their dietary energy from animal protein. That's because, to obtain protein other than the donated meat, rural Zambians, who cannot legally hunt for themselves, have three choices: raise their own livestock, fish, or buy meat. In many areas of rural Zambia inadequate grazing or the presence of tsetse flies makes raising livestock impossible. To fish legally requires purchasing a permit and having access to water, and purchasing meat is prohibitively expensive for most Zambians, who live on less than US$1 per day.

“Thus, although meat provisioned by sport hunting operators represents a small percentage of protein requirements for Zambians overall, it appears an effective means of distributing fresh, high-quality meat to some of the most remote areas of the country with the greatest protein needs, thereby partially alleviating protein deficiencies in rural Africans,” the authors concluded.

"As I began to examine the data in depth, I was surpised by the large amount of meat that was being distributed," said White. "I was also surprised at the paucity of scientific studies that examine how hunting activities can directly support conservation. There is a wealth of colloquial information, but it rarely gets quantified or distributed in a manner that helps demonstrate the benefits that hunting can provide, in this case to rural communities in Africa."

The paper goes on to discuss a recent, tragic development related to the original study: A hunting moratorium that was put in place during 2013 and 2014 throughout most of Zambia’s GMAs meant the game meat normally donated by the hunting industry was eliminated. This created a crisis, made worse by the fact that rural areas of Zambia are not exactly overloaded with employment opportunities. The jobs provided by hunting camps were lost during the moratorium, and the items that the hunting camps usually buy from local communities (grass for thatching, vegetables, cornmeal) were not needed. The upshot was that, in addition to losing their supply of donated meat, many rural Zambians lost the income that would have allowed them to purchase meat.

Under these circumstances, the locals can hardly be blamed for doing their own hunting. Unfortunately, the indiscriminate methods used by the local "bushmeat" hunters, such as the use of crude snares and the overharvesting of females and young animals, are unsustainable and quickly lead to the depletion of wildlife populations throughout a wide area--unlike legal safari hunting, which is carefully controlled by quotas and regulations. It's unquestionable, the study authors said, that the severity and rate of bushmeat poaching escalated during the hunting closure. It is uncertain if any of the GMAs affected by the moratorium will be reopened to hunting this year.

"In the absence of legitimate operators, the GMAs will continue to get encroached upon by humans and livestock, and hammered by poachers as has been happening throughout the last two years," White said. "The communities feel forgotten and are getting by however they can. It is hard to watch, but given what they have lost during the moratorium--meat, jobs, money--and the uncertainty of their future, it is hard to blame them. Right now, they are just trying to survive any way they can."

I think that this issue should be much more emphazised when discussing African hunting.

I notice when discussing international trophy hunting with non hunters that they have a higher level of acceptance when they learn that the trophy game is feeding someone.

Morten

quote:

Originally posted by The Norwegian:
I think that this issue should be much more emphazised when discussing African hunting.

I notice when discussing international trophy hunting with non hunters that they have a higher level of acceptance when they learn that the trophy game is feeding someone.

Morten

Very true!! This article should be promoted!!

Here is the original in Sports Afield
http://sportsafield.com/content/something-chew

Great point...
"Photo Tourism" could be argued to provide money (irregardless of increased human impact), but what in the world (read Hell) do these people think will happen when the supply of meat and protein suddenly stops!!!!
They actually think "trickle down economics" of Phototourism will replace this! Emotional stupidity replaced by starving Africans and snares....

I do not believe that arguments like this have any credible impact on the debate over hunting. As hunters sometimes we gravitate to this argument to rationalize the sport it seems to me. In my view, the only argument that might, and I emphasize might, impact the public at large is that the dollars provided by hunting and hunters are critical to conservation efforts, e.g., due to the hunting dollars pumped into South Africa there is now more game in South Africa than was present in the country when the Dutch landed on the Continent 300 years ago. I am not saying the argument that game meat feeds the locals is an argument to avoid, simply that I think the dollars and cents argument is much more compelling. For example, saving elephant hunting will have much more to do with explaining to people that the dollars provided by hunting is critical to habitat preservation and anti-poaching, and the hunting offtake is nominal, than it will that each elephant feeds so many hundreds of hungry locals.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I do not believe that arguments like this have any credible impact on the debate over hunting. As hunters sometimes we gravitate to this argument to rationalize the sport it seems to me. In my view, the only argument that might, and I emphasize might, impact the public at large is that the dollars provided by hunting and hunters are critical to conservation efforts, e.g., due to the hunting dollars pumped into South Africa there is now more game in South Africa than was present in the country when the Dutch landed on the Continent 300 years ago. I am not saying the argument that game meat feeds the locals is an argument to avoid, simply that I think the dollars and cents argument is much more compelling. For example, saving elephant hunting will have much more to do with explaining to people that the dollars provided by hunting is critical to habitat preservation and anti-poaching, and the hunting offtake is nominal, than it will that each elephant feeds so many hundreds of hungry locals.

+1

Hunting has to looked in an rational economic framework - optimal ecnomic use of a renewable resource.

Mike

I agree Mike, but they are somewhat one in the same.
What I am amazed at as a counterpoint ( not that I buy in), is that the simple dollar/economic argument by itself is attacked more so even by Antis by saying "Phototourism" provides far more dollars and economic value and thus makes more sense. (I.e. Botswana and Kenya many years ago)
Now...we all know thats BS, but to your point we should do an even BETTER job of arguing and contrasting the Total Economic impact and benefit of Hunting. It truly is the only viable economic model...
Great point.

Short story:

My wife told some ladies at church that I was off hunting in Africa. A response was something like "oh those poor animals".

A few weeks later those ladies asked about the "hunt". As it turned out I was hunting MK1 in the Selous. A game official visited us in camp the asked if we could cull some buff and wildebeests for a village in the Gonabisi. We took 5 buffalo and 10 wildebeest. The government supplied a tractor and trailer which the villagers field dressed and piled them in the trailer. With this in my pocket I told the ladies I provided a poor African Village with over 10,000 lbs of meat. It put a whole new light on hunting for these ladies.

There are many reasons why safari hunting simply 'works' around indigenous communities and tribal lands. It isn't just about the money - distribution of meat, social interaction, building of infrastructure, security, employment ... all of these things can be shared or enjoyed by the whole community. In many cases the actual safari money is not distributed and perhaps for very good reasons. Not all of the community members are entitled to the money - but they can all take advantage of the non-pecuniary benefits.

IMO - when the fence-sitters or those 'without knowledge' are given these facts - they invariably feel much easier with the whole situation.

quote:

Originally posted by JBoutfishn:
Short story:

My wife told some ladies at church that I was off hunting in Africa. A response was something like "oh those poor animals".

A few weeks later those ladies asked about the "hunt". As it turned out I was hunting MK1 in the Selous. A game official visited us in camp the asked if we could cull some buff and wildebeests for a village in the Gonabisi. We took 5 buffalo and 10 wildebeest. The government supplied a tractor and trailer which the villagers field dressed and piled them in the trailer. With this in my pocket I told the ladies I provided a poor African Village with over 10,000 lbs of meat. It put a whole new light on hunting for these ladies.

That Game Official must have had a great weekend!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I do not believe that arguments like this have any credible impact on the debate over hunting. As hunters sometimes we gravitate to this argument to rationalize the sport it seems to me. In my view, the only argument that might, and I emphasize might, impact the public at large is that the dollars provided by hunting and hunters are critical to conservation efforts, e.g., due to the hunting dollars pumped into South Africa there is now more game in South Africa than was present in the country when the Dutch landed on the Continent 300 years ago. I am not saying the argument that game meat feeds the locals is an argument to avoid, simply that I think the dollars and cents argument is much more compelling. For example, saving elephant hunting will have much more to do with explaining to people that the dollars provided by hunting is critical to habitat preservation and anti-poaching, and the hunting offtake is nominal, than it will that each elephant feeds so many hundreds of hungry locals.

Agreed Mike however it is fairly simple to convert to cash. For example I can get 1,500kg of meat off a big hippo bull @ $3 a kilo = $4,500. Add that to what my community earns from the hunt then that is a very important income from one animal alone. I would be interested to know what a Zim elephant carcass equates to in cash?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I do not believe that arguments like this have any credible impact on the debate over hunting. As hunters sometimes we gravitate to this argument to rationalize the sport it seems to me. In my view, the only argument that might, and I emphasize might, impact the public at large is that the dollars provided by hunting and hunters are critical to conservation efforts, e.g., due to the hunting dollars pumped into South Africa there is now more game in South Africa than was present in the country when the Dutch landed on the Continent 300 years ago. I am not saying the argument that game meat feeds the locals is an argument to avoid, simply that I think the dollars and cents argument is much more compelling. For example, saving elephant hunting will have much more to do with explaining to people that the dollars provided by hunting is critical to habitat preservation and anti-poaching, and the hunting offtake is nominal, than it will that each elephant feeds so many hundreds of hungry locals.

I couldn't agree more with Mike.

Unfortunately it is hard to gauge the average Joe public's perception to hunting. Case in point, only the other night on one of our National free to air TV channels was the prime time show where the use of dogs by our Police, Prison staff and Border personnel is showcased. A package at one of our airport freight depots was picked out by a dog trained to sniff out food and animals. on opening the package from Africa there was a range of trophies obviously shipped in for a hunter, presumably or maybe a collector who just bought them. There was CITIES documentation with the package and all was in compliance but one by one each trophy was unpacked for the benefit of the viewing public, a couple of perfectly clean and white crocodile skulls complete with teeth etc, a fairly large stuffed owl of some sort, a small stuffed cat, apparently a variety often kept as pets in South Africa but more disturbing even to myself as a hunter who has shot a variety of animals and dispatched various pets and farm animals over the years, there were a couple of stuffed Baboon heads.

Really, are these such a difficult and sort after trophy that it is necessary to have a couple of almost human like heads kept and displayed. I felt the exposure did absolutely nothing for hunters and only promoted them as perverse collectors. Conversely we have a couple of new hunting shows on prime time TV where there are plenty of kill shots along with the gut busting hunting to get some of the animals (tahr and chamois in particular) or showing the preparation and nicely controlled execution of say a duck or goose hunt and shoot. In typical low key down to earth Kiwi fashion there is no stupid bragging and skylarking and the shows give a good representation of trophy hunting and meat hunting as well as the animal population control aspect.

As often posted here, we can be our own worst enemy much of the time

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I do not believe that arguments like this have any credible impact on the debate over hunting. As hunters sometimes we gravitate to this argument to rationalize the sport it seems to me. In my view, the only argument that might, and I emphasize might, impact the public at large is that the dollars provided by hunting and hunters are critical to conservation efforts, e.g., due to the hunting dollars pumped into South Africa there is now more game in South Africa than was present in the country when the Dutch landed on the Continent 300 years ago. I am not saying the argument that game meat feeds the locals is an argument to avoid, simply that I think the dollars and cents argument is much more compelling. For example, saving elephant hunting will have much more to do with explaining to people that the dollars provided by hunting is critical to habitat preservation and anti-poaching, and the hunting offtake is nominal, than it will that each elephant feeds so many hundreds of hungry locals.

Mike,

you are of course correct about this, but my experience is that many people does not understand the " dollar and conservation " issue as good as we hunters do. At least until we have had a more deep discussion about it. In these cases I try to simplyfy the picture to people a little bit and they understand food and protein. I think we all agree that there are many elements and aspects in this discussion, but I think that we hunters also should have the " food " aspect with us somewhat more and not just trophies. In the end I think that hunters agree on that we want to hunt - even if all trophies were gone !?

Another thing is that hunters are in some way looked upon as poachers ! Especially when we go after the trophy. Some official reports make a point of this " fact" ! If we are able to confirm to people that meat is taken care of and supply the people/villages etc with valuable protein and clean food - I think that will benefit our interest in the long run.

But, as always Mike, you have a very good point. It is just that we have to argue from different angles to get the total message into peoples heads. IMO.


Morten

The anti hunting crowd is whipped up by emotive rather than factual issues; class/wealth envy and the false premise that hunters get pleasure from killing rather than hunting.

I agree with the comments above that we should promote all positive factual information inherent in our activities. There are also ways in which we can take the emotional wind out of the antis' sails but we have not been very good at it so far.

quote:

but more disturbing even to myself as a hunter who has shot a variety of animals and dispatched various pets and farm animals over the years, there were a couple of stuffed Baboon heads.Really, are these such a difficult and sort after trophy that it is necessary to have a couple of almost human like heads kept and displayed

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a taxidermied baboon head. Would not mind having one myself as I do not equate them to humans.
As far as difficult, depends on where you hunt them. In Namibia we never got within 800yds of them, in Zim we saw them at close range regularly.

quote:

Originally posted by The Norwegian:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I do not believe that arguments like this have any credible impact on the debate over hunting. As hunters sometimes we gravitate to this argument to rationalize the sport it seems to me. In my view, the only argument that might, and I emphasize might, impact the public at large is that the dollars provided by hunting and hunters are critical to conservation efforts, e.g., due to the hunting dollars pumped into South Africa there is now more game in South Africa than was present in the country when the Dutch landed on the Continent 300 years ago. I am not saying the argument that game meat feeds the locals is an argument to avoid, simply that I think the dollars and cents argument is much more compelling. For example, saving elephant hunting will have much more to do with explaining to people that the dollars provided by hunting is critical to habitat preservation and anti-poaching, and the hunting offtake is nominal, than it will that each elephant feeds so many hundreds of hungry locals.

Mike,

you are of course correct about this, but my experience is that many people does not understand the " dollar and conservation " issue as good as we hunters do. At least until we have had a more deep discussion about it. In these cases I try to simplyfy the picture to people a little bit and they understand food and protein. I think we all agree that there are many elements and aspects in this discussion, but I think that we hunters also should have the " food " aspect with us somewhat more and not just trophies. In the end I think that hunters agree on that we want to hunt - even if all trophies were gone !?

Another thing is that hunters are in some way looked upon as poachers ! Especially when we go after the trophy. Some official reports make a point of this " fact" ! If we are able to confirm to people that meat is taken care of and supply the people/villages etc with valuable protein and clean food - I think that will benefit our interest in the long run.

But, as always Mike, you have a very good point. It is just that we have to argue from different angles to get the total message into peoples heads. IMO.


Morten

Morten, I agree with what you say.
Bakes thanks for posting. One more pice of evidence in my locker when talking to antis and those who are not sure.

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

but more disturbing even to myself as a hunter who has shot a variety of animals and dispatched various pets and farm animals over the years, there were a couple of stuffed Baboon heads.Really, are these such a difficult and sort after trophy that it is necessary to have a couple of almost human like heads kept and displayed

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a taxidermied baboon head. Would not mind having one myself as I do not equate them to humans.
As far as difficult, depends on where you hunt them. In Namibia we never got within 800yds of them, in Zim we saw them at close range regularly.

That is all fine mate but refrain from posting it on facebook.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

but more disturbing even to myself as a hunter who has shot a variety of animals and dispatched various pets and farm animals over the years, there were a couple of stuffed Baboon heads.Really, are these such a difficult and sort after trophy that it is necessary to have a couple of almost human like heads kept and displayed

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a taxidermied baboon head. Would not mind having one myself as I do not equate them to humans.
As far as difficult, depends on where you hunt them. In Namibia we never got within 800yds of them, in Zim we saw them at close range regularly.

That is all fine mate but refrain from posting it on facebook.

Yup - good point Andrew !

Morten