I believe it was CP that came up with the figure of $2000/sqkm needed for optimum, effective conservation of protected areas. TZ, as an example, has over 300,000 sq km of protected areas which would require $600 million annually from Government. It ain't gonna happen...... Now, if we could only tap into the Bill Gates Foundation and ask for some change

Therein lies the problem. The antis want to stop consumptive use of a renewable natural resource but have absolutely no idea how to replace the income generated by hunting. Turn them into photo areas is the one "solution" offered but that market is already pretty much saturated. The governments must stop being corrupt and spend money on protecting the wilderness areas, is another. Spending money on the environment is at the bottom of just about every African government's priority list. That will not change any time soon. So until there is a viable income generating alternative, hunting is the best land use option in these areas.

Jo,

The grizzly needs hunting so that it would have worth to land owners. It has expanded past its token park boundaries. Right now...when it leaves the park...it is considered a detriment to society. If it were huntable...people could sell quota and they could colonize new land. They would also learn to avoid people rated than seeking them out.

quote:

It would be interesting to know where you did get your numbers from. If you are right, please let us know where you got your info from so that it can be verified. If you are wrong, I am not concerned about an apology here but it would be great if you let your faithful know as well as the general public. Perhaps a blog from Brother Pieter Kat on your official website?

Hi Zig,

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this but i have been busy with work. I haven't had a huge amount of time to put into looking for the research to back the figures i provided but since i cannot find it and have no record of where it came from (bad research keeping on my part) i can only apologise and retract it.

I will of course though i rarely quote numbers to anyone make sure i correct my mistake. As for a Lion Aid blog, i have no input and i know they are very busy getting ready for the conference which now 11 countries are attending.

I would just like to point out that the IUCN incident you refer to i did not say they were against hunting. I posted a piece from a site, wildlifeextra.com if my mind serves me right that indicated they did not. At the time of reading this and posting it i did not know it had been taken out of context.

quote:

"Whilst i will agree that Africa is certainly not as rich as countries such as the UK or USA i cannot possibly agree they do not have money to put towards conservation. Africa is one of those countries like many where the big chiefs sit back and get filthy rich whilst the poor get poorer. Enough said i believe."

You need to check it out in person. They don't have the funds.

John,

No offence but i feel this a rather naive statement to make. I'm perfectly aware of the situation in South Africa particularly, Zimbabwe a little when it comes to funds.
As i previously stated the poor get poorer whilst the rich get richer, ie, the governments fill their pockets and stuff everyone else.
There are funds if the government stopped being so greedy and gave a toss about its people and wildlife but it doesnt. I agree with others who have said that this is not likely to change either.
Just out of curiosity have you seen the high walled, electric fenced complexes the well to do live in in South Africa and the shanty towns the poorer live in. I say poorer because every one we drove through had satellite dishes and bmw's parked outside many of the corrugated iron huts?
There is money in South Africa etc, it's just not spread well like many countries.

quote:

The grizzly needs hunting so that it would have worth to land owners. It has expanded past its token park boundaries. Right now...when it leaves the park...it is considered a detriment to society. If it were huntable...people could sell quota and they could colonize new land. They would also learn to avoid people rated than seeking them out

Ledvm,

Thank you. As i understand it the bears only seek out humans because they know they are a good source of food, dustbins etc. I can see your point.

Jo,

It didn't take me long to find out where you got your figures from, have a look here http://forums.accuratereloadin...1411043/m/3971053761

As you have said a number of times you are not a threat to hunters and you are right. But what it does boil down to is credibility. You come onto a hunting forum pretending to be a "researcher" trying to find the truth. You then proceed to post false information and lecture everyone here about how hunters need to clean up their act. You pretend to have experience on how things are in Africa because you have driven past a shanty town in South Africa and petted a lion cub at the Johannesburg lion park.

If one goes onto to a hamster-rearing forum one should know something about hamsters before giving lectures about them.

Looks like LionAid sold this conference to DEFRA as a simple exchange of ideas among range states. A low level meeting.

To the rest of the world they are trying to sell it as a high level meeting to devine a consensus and advise CITES on the uplisting of lions.

Some range states may now be recognizing that they would simply be pawns in there scheme if they showed up.

Indeed

It looks like LionAid actually read John Jackson's phone over his shoulder at the last CITES conference and then published a text he made. Putting ethics aside is that even legal to do in Switzerland?

Quoted from LionAid:
"Now back to John Jackson III. He prides himself in representing the interests of hunters (who are all conservationists or so they claim) and after the discussion of the LionAid conference immediately started texting on his phone. You will see what he wrote below. "

http://www.lionaid.org/news/20...out-conservation.htm

pathetic!

Looks like they are starting a CYA maneuver. Here is LionAids full blog post.

Latest News

Subscribe to Lion Aid Latest News


Hunters once again show how little they care about conservation

Sunday 18th March 2012




As our regular readers know, there will be a LionAid conference sponsored by the UK Government among lion African range states from 29th-30th March. To date we have eleven range states attending, and we look forward to a considered and relevant discussion taking place among the delegates. We do believe that this conference will contribute directly to much better lion conservation measures. The hunting community has taken note, and is seeking to undermine the conference, I’ll get to this in a minute.





We are posting this after our one day attendance as Visitors at the CITES Animals Committee meeting on 15th March. As you know, CITES is composed of 174 nation signatories to the Convention to regulate trade in commercially important species. These include prominent taxa like elephants and rhinos, but also include a diversity of other species involved in perhaps detrimental commercial offtake like sharks, sea cucumbers, turtles, and snakes.




The challenge of reversing the ever-mounting declines of species by CITES is a daunting task, especially as vested interests are hard at work. The meetings are highly formal, but intense lobbying is allowed behind the scenes. Also present at the meeting was John Jackson III of Conservation Force, seated in close proximity to us.




The conference was announced in an official Information Document to the delegates. Such documents usually cannot be discussed in plenary session, but this one certainly was. The Chairman, Carlos Ibero Solana from Spain actually praised the UK Government and LionAid for facilitating the conference, and considerable background information was provided by the Europe member of the Animals Committee, Vin Fleming. The delegate from Namibia spoke up as well, and asked for clarification about the conference and the means by which the conference results would be made available to CITES. She said that given the importance of the conference, Namibia might need to revise attendance – not that they would not attend, but that they might propose delegates at a higher level. In subsequent private conversation we assured her that the delegates themselves would decide how our conference resolutions would be communicated.




Now back to John Jackson III. He prides himself in representing the interests of hunters (who are all conservationists or so they claim) and after the discussion of the LionAid conference immediately started texting on his phone. You will see what he wrote below.





Our question is this. What possible benefit is there to lion range states to boycott the meeting as John Jackson is advocating? Is he worried that the range states might arrive at conclusions that the hunters cannot control as they are not invited to attend? The range states are independent nations that can surely make up their own minds about lion conservation and management within their countries and across their borders.




It just goes to show that hunters are not conservationists. Instead of supporting an important meeting to decide the best way forward for African lions they would rather seek to undermine the meeting and promote the status quo that has led to the great decline in this iconic species.




ps – John Jackson did not sit with the Namibian delegates over lunch. He also should have been well aware of who we were – Visitors wear blue badges, and there were only two of us wearing that badge on the day. As mentioned, we were seated about 10 metres from him, so he knew exactly who we were…










From: John J. Jackson, III

--private email here--
--removed 3/21/12 so that I don't continue to disseminate it--

Sincerely,
John



Post-Note: Luncheon conversations suggest Namibia was suggesting avoiding the UK-funded LionAid workshop that is now to be held in RSA because it has converted from an information workshop to one considering listing. This also is not what the UK intended, i.e. it has been hijacked for listing purposes and to bypass the CITES Review and IUCN CSG reviews. Of course, if that was Namibia's purpose, it is right. There was some thought that the Workshop may cancel if enough range nations pull out.




-- John J. Jackson, IIICONSERVATION FORCE3240 S. I-10 Service Road W., Suite 200Metairie, Louisiana 70001Tel: (504) 837-1233Fax: (504) 837-1145jjw-no@att.netwww.conservationforce.org



Picture Credit: nmonetwork.org

Posted by Pieter Kat at 23:18

How did they get a copy of his text?

One of three ways;

1) hacked his phone
2) looked over his shoulder at the conference
3) got mail from one of his recipients

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
One of three ways;

1) hacked his phone
2) looked over his shoulder at the conference
3) got mail from one of his recipients

It was #3.

Yes it was three as confirmed this AM.

Still bad form for LionAid to publish a Blog post on it. A post that, as of this morning, they have withdrawn from there website.

I think it shows what an immature organization LionAid really is. Two guys with an idea and a website and enough hubris to think they have the one and only solution to save wild lions. Nevermind what the wildlife agencies, communities and scientists on the ground say.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
Yes it was three as confirmed this AM.

Still bad form for LionAid to publish a Blog post on it. A post that, as of this morning, they have withdrawn from there website.

I think it shows what an immature organization LionAid really is. Two guys with an idea and a website and enough hubris to think they have the one and only solution to save wild lions. Nevermind what the wildlife agencies, communities and scientists on the ground say.

Agreed! I was also surprised when I found out who did it! on them!!!