quote:
Fact is, quotas are the CONTROL, a control that we and the "experienced" scientific community are actually AGAINST! If everyone in the industry is, was and would have been shooting ONLY older/mature lions, the need for quotas would be un-necessary. A fact that we the LCTF and the entire scientific community agree on. So I ask you, who really is in favor of "controlling the hunter"?
Now we are getting to the root of MY issue. I completely and totally agree with the above statement. However, I do not understand how we could ever have the above "no quota" system as long as there is the money involved that is involved. I also am not convinced that an "honor system" that allows outfitters/hunters to shoot every 6+yr old lion it wants is sustainable.
First, a question (for reference only), who (or what) is Bwanamich? A PH, operator, conciencous observer?
Now, let's start with what was said in the report posted by Bwanamich:
quote:
Female population size was highly sensitive to any quota
taking >2 males/year when the harvest included lions
as young as 3 years old (Fig. 1a). Irrespective of quota
size, harvesting males at least 5 years old had a negligible
effect on population viability. Placing age restrictions on
lions shot increased the total number of males harvested
after 30 years and increased the number of 5- and 6- year
old trophies in the population by protecting young males
(Fig. 1b & c).
Harvesting older males did not reduce the population’s
capacity to maintain a viable breeding population even
when the populationwas initially depleted by an environmental
perturbation, whereas shooting younger males significantly
affected the outcome. Female population size
after 30 years of harvesting differed very little between a
population that was initially at equilibrium and one that
was recovering from a perturbation event (Fig. 1a & 2).
Restricting the harvest to older age classes permitted
the initially depleted populations to recover to levels comparable
to stable populations within 15–25 years. Growth
in female population sizewas resilient to harvesting when
annual quota size was both moderate (4 males; Fig. 3)
and high (8 males; Fig. 4). Although unhunted, recovering
populations maintained a larger number of females
through time in comparison with recovering hunted populations,
they grewin a similar trajectory when only males
≥5 or ≥6 yearswere targeted. Quota sizewas only important
when immature males (≤4 years)were taken. Extinction
occurred at least once per 100 runs when quota size
exceeded more than two ≥3 or ≥4 year old males each
year; whereas extinction never occurred when hunting
was restricted to males ≥5 or ≥6 years old.......
If trophy hunting is to serve as a conservation tool
for lion populations outside protected areas, the industry
needs to adopt an age minimum to ensure a sustainable
offtake and to address the needs of the people most likely
to be affected by living in close proximity to lions. The
results from our model demonstrate that lion populations
are resilient to sport hunting of mature males and that environmental
stochasticity does not affect the predictions
of the model. An age-restricted offtake provides an easyto-
implement alternative to quotas despite some inherent
error in its application.
I would say that this gets to Bwanamich's statement below...
quote:
originally posted by Bwanamich:
if you set a strict quota, it will probably be 2-3 lions max. If an area actually contains 8 lions then you are not fully maximizing the resource potential. You could/should be offering 8 lion hunts, generating more revenue for conservation and more benefit to communities, etc, etc.
So every >6 yo lion seen and not hunted is a lost opportunity.
Which drew the question from me...
quote:
originally posted by 505 Gibbs:
Are you stating that every lion that is 6+ should be hunted and harvested if possible?
please see Bwanamich's "answer" below
quote:
originally posted by Bwanamich:
I thought you could read?
Go on, tell me why not.............
Despite Bwanamich's failure to answer the question I asked, Aaron answered with the below...
quote:
originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Brad - Careful again with the wording! Not that every 6 yr old SHOULD/MUST be hunted. However, once one understands the science behind it, one will also understand that 6 yr old plus lions can be hunted without negative impact to the lion dynamics in a given area.
A fact lost on some PH/outfitters, that could have worked towards the elimination of quotas for lion, along time ago. If outfitters WOULD self-regulate themselves to only shooting > 6yr olds, a lion quota would be irrelevant and un-necessary.
The start of this answer, advise "Careful again with the wording!", leads me to believe that Aaron does not agree with a positive answer to my question. From what I can see, Bwanamich has posted a study that states taking of only >5yr males is sustainable without a quota. He has also stated that not hunting or taking of any of these males (he defines the age at >6yrs) would not be an efficient use of the resource and that any male seen (known about?) and not hunted was a lost opportunity.
This gets to the part of this whole scenario that I cannot put together. If I listen to Bwanamich, I hear a business man with access to a resource or commodity. Any single piece of that resource that is not converted to cash or revenue is a loss. Therefore, he has a vested interest in harvesting EVERY >6 yr lion he has access to.
Pay close attention, here is one of the important questions:
Will the results of the study still apply when the test data is changed from shooting nothing but >5 & >6 yr old males to shooting EVERY >5 & >6 yr old male?
FYI, this is just the beginning of my questions related to this "study", but we can get to the rest later if the "moderators" of this forum are truly interested in having a discussion about this subject with someone who is truly interested.
