Jo,

Just because an outfitter sells more hunt's then quotas allow doesn't mean anything from a conservation perspective. You go on a lion hunt you may or may not see a lion... so it is possible that a quota item isn't used. Airlines do something similar all the time. Now hunters may be incensed (just like airline passengers) if they show up and find there isn't an animal quota available, or seat.

When I started participating on the LionAid site many of my hunting friends (pretty much all of them) asked why I bother. And actively discouraged my participation. Why is this? It is because hunters have a long history of conservation, in fact we invented it. We spend millions on it each year. And when johnnycomelatelys attack and assault us in vile ways (I and my family have been directly threatened on the lionaid site) we pretty much don't want to participate. However in spite of this I continue to participate to continue to provide an alternative view to people coming to the site.

John

quote:

Just because an outfitter sells more hunt's then quotas allow doesn't mean anything from a conservation perspective. You go on a lion hunt you may or may not see a lion... so it is possible that a quota item isn't used. Airlines do something similar all the time. Now hunters may be incensed (just like airline passengers) if they show up and find there isn't an animal quota available, or seat.

quote:

Scott has taken 3 leopard hunters this year and all took big males.

quote:

This hunt will take place in the Limpopo Province.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...2100588/m/6391006061

quote:

1. Every Outfitter in Limpopo is allowed ONLY 1 Leopard Tag per year.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...2101325/m/3831012161

Please John do not under estimate my intelligence. 3 leopard tags taken in the Limpopo area and 2 more on bait. Now if legally only 1 leopard tag is allowed per year in this year, well you do the math!

I think the point you made in the original quote pretty much becomes moot in light of the other thread quotes regarding this particular incident.

quote:

When I started participating on the LionAid site many of my hunting friends (pretty much all of them) asked why I bother. And actively discouraged my participation. Why is this? It is because hunters have a long history of conservation, in fact we invented it. We spend millions on it each year. And when johnnycomelatelys attack and assault us in vile ways (I and my family have been directly threatened on the lionaid site) we pretty much don't want to participate. However in spite of this I continue to participate to continue to provide an alternative view to people coming to the site.

Firstly i'm going to ask you to prove hunters invented conservation. That's a might big statement to make without backing it up.

With respect posting on the lion aid wall is not getting the message out to the public. You have a very small audience there compared to the audience you would have if you start coming out.
You cannot blame the public for saying vile things when they only have one side of the story. It does not make threats etc right but you do nothing to help yourselves, you do not stand your ground in a public way.
The media is and always has been a tool - use it!!Announce to the worls you care about the conservation of the lion and how you feel you are contributing to its survival.

When the chips are down John and should the unthinkable for hunters happen the lion is upgraded and you can't hunt it, will the hunting community be able to say they did all they could to prevent it happening? Or will they then realise they should have made the public aware of their cause?

by H. Sterling Burnett


The state of wildlife on the African continent today resembles that of wildlife in the United States in the late 19th century. African wildlife populations are declining as habitat is converted to farming, wildlife is competing with or preying on domestic livestock and wildlife pursuit is increasingly commercialized. But first in the United States and now in Africa, hunters have led the charge to conserve wildlife.

Although some may find the fact surprising, outdoor sportsmen proposed and carried out virtually all of the initiatives that saved important U.S. game species from extinction. Indeed, most funding for the research into wildlife needs and habitat preservation still is provided by hunters. If Africa's diverse wildlife is to survive, it too likely will owe that survival to hunters.

Wildlife Conservation in America.

President Theodore Roosevelt, a noted big-game hunter, is often credited as the initial force behind American wildlife conservation. While Roosevelt did draw vital public attention to wildlife conservation, hunters began public and private efforts decades before Roosevelt established the first wildlife reservation in 1903.

•In 1846 prominent sportsmen prodded Rhode Island legislators into passing the first seasonal hunting regulation for waterfowl.
•In 1871 a sportsmen's association established the nation's first incorporated game preserve, the 12,000-acre Blooming Grove Park in Pike County, Pa., for the purpose of "preserving, importing, breeding and propagating game animals, birds and fish, and of furnishing facilities to the members for hunting, shooting and fishing."
•In 1877 prominent New York sportsmen formed the Bisby Club in the Adirondack Mountains, and by the early 1890s the original group merged with the Adirondack League Club to protect a 179,000-acre game reserve.
•In 1878 sportsmen in Iowa pushed legislation to initiate the first limits on the number of animals taken daily.

The late 19th century saw lobbying and grassroots organizing by hunting organizations such as the Boone and Crockett Club (formed in 1887) - whose members included Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, founder of the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Rifle Association (1871); later came the Izaak Walton League (1922). Bolstered by editorials and articles in outdoor journals such as Forest and Stream (1873), Field and Stream (1874) and American Sportsmen (1871), the organizations pressed Congress to pass the first substantial national wildlife management bills:
•The Lacey Act (1900), the first federal law protecting game, prohibited the interstate shipment of illegally taken wildlife and importation of species.
•The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) regulated the hunting of migratory birds.
•The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (1934), known as the "Duck Stamp Act," required hunters of migratory birds to buy a federal duck stamp, with the generated revenue dedicated to wetlands conservation projects.
•The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (1937), also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, created a 10 percent excise tax - increased later to 11 percent- on sporting arms and ammunition. Revenue is deposited in a special trust fund under the management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be used for state wildlife restoration projects.

In 1908 New York became the first state to require a hunting license. By 1928 every state had instituted a hunting license requirement, with the funds dedicated to wildlife management.

Hunters' Dollars Save Wildlife.

The various licenses, fees and taxes on hunting and hunting equipment fund more than 90 percent of the budgets of state fish and wildlife agencies.
•Since 1923, sales of state hunting licenses, tags and permits have provided more than $10.2 billion for wildlife management, habitat acquisition and enhancement and conservation law enforcement.
•The Federal Duck Stamp Program has generated more than $500 million for the purchase and protection of wetlands, with duck stamp revenue reaching $22.9 million annually by 1996.
•The Pittman-Robertson Act has distributed more than $3.8 billion to state fish and wildlife agencies since 1937.

In addition, the more than 15 million licensed hunters in the United States direct money, time and effort to conserve wildlife and habitat as individuals and through local clubs, state conservation groups, state hunting organizations and many national associations.
•The 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation reports that hunting expenditures totaled $20.6 billion, with $11.3 billion going for hunting equipment, $5.2 billion for trip-related expenses and $4.1 billion for other expenses such as land leases, membership dues and licenses.
•Combined with fishing and trapping licenses and taxes, the total sportsmen's wildlife conservation contribution for 2000 was over $3.7 billion.

Hunters' dollars and efforts have paid off for wildlife. In the 1920s many wildlife populations were at historic lows, but now they are booming. As the graphic shows:
•White-tailed deer populations had declined to approximately 300,000, wild turkey to fewer than 30,000, pronghorn antelope to only 25,000 and North American elk to 50,000; the wood duck was nearly extinct and there were fewer than 500 bison.
•Today there are more than 20 million white-tailed deer, more than 4 million turkeys (with populations in every state but Alaska) and more than 1 million antelope and elk.
•Wood ducks, numbering over 3 million, are the most common breeding waterfowl in the U.S., and bison number 350,000.

By conserving habitat for game animals, hunters benefit non-game wildlife as well. For instance, hundreds of threatened and endangered non-game animals live on the 9 million-plus acres restored by Ducks Unlimited, a private conservation organization founded by duck hunters.

Hunters Benefit African Wildlife.

. Individually and through organizations such as Safari Club International, big-game hunters from the United States and around the world also have worked with governments in Africa to save threatened and endangered African wildlife. Hunters, private landowners and even tribes and villages have worked together to establish wildlife conservancies in several countries. Hunting is the main source of income for the conservancies and many ranchers and provides native peoples and private landowners alike with incentives to preserve wildlife in Zimbabwe and in other poverty-stricken nations. In Africa the motto is: If it pays, it stays.

The conservancies work to develop relationships with and improve the local economy of nearby communities. Conservancies involve locals who work as trackers for hunting parties and as guards to ward off poachers. One conservancy also has set up a trust on behalf of the local communities. To establish an annual income, the trust will purchase wildlife to be released in the conservancy, and the conservancy will later pay the trust for any increases in population over the original number of animals. Among the animals that have come to be seen by Africans as desirable as opposed to pests are elephants, lions, leopards and numerous antelope species.

Conclusion.

Among some environmental groups, hunting has a bad name due to the early excesses of market hunting in the United States and poaching in Africa. Yet regulated sport hunting has not caused or threatened the extinction of a single species. On the contrary, in America and Africa, the money hunters spend and contribute pays the cost of wildlife protection.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

We are losing the propaganda war, no question about it. And in time we may lose enough battles that hunting becomes restricted. At that point I will hang up my rifle and tell my grand kids about what hunting in Africa was like.

It's a romantic vision I suppose.

In the end there probably just aren't enough resources to carry on the research and support and fight all the fires. Besides how much should we spend fighting those that also are interested in the conservation of wild lions when the greater threat is still out there. Do we exhaust ourselves on the anti's only to lose to all the other interests?

quote:

and should the unthinkable for hunters happen the lion is upgraded and you can't hunt it, will the hunting community be able to say they did all they could to prevent it happening? Or will they then realise they should have made the public aware of their cause?

One must ask who is really responsible for upgrading and on what grounds are these decisions made? I can only speak from Zambia, and what research has been undertaken here? Leopard prior to the upgrade for example? Leopard are common. Is it not always the big and beautiful, the magnificent of our animals that attracts uneducated attention?

Until regional scientific research can be conducted then who really knows what the status is of our animals. Last year Zambia reduced it's Lion quota but no one is sure on what grounds? And this question still remains unanswered today.

Do we have a Lion problem or is it purely conjecture? Could it be that country wide there is an overpopulation of Lions? It would seem so on my doorstep but that is hardly sufficient research is it?

John,
I haven't time now to address or read properly the first post as i am working. I will however comment on your second.

quote:

In the end there probably just aren't enough resources to carry on the research and support and fight all the fires. Besides how much should we spend fighting those that also are interested in the conservation of wild lions when the greater threat is still out there. Do we exhaust ourselves on the anti's only to lose to all the other interests?

You miss my point. I'm not talking about fighting the anti's, im talking about educating the public who could give you some needed support. Think outside the box.

Fairgame,

I'll come back to your post, again i haven't the time to address it properly.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Fairgame,

I'll come back to your post, again i haven't the time to address it properly.

No worries. My point is simply that there is not enough regional research going on and therefore how can conclusions be drawn?

John,

Well i learn something new every day. Thanks for that piece it was really interesting.

It's just a shame that there are no sources for the info he gives.

quote:

One must ask who is really responsible for upgrading and on what grounds are these decisions made?

For me that question is unimportant as long as the right decision is made. I have repeatedly said i want what is best for the lion. If stopping hunting them is best then thats where i stand and if hunting them is best then ditto.

On what grounds these decisions are made i certainly dont have all the answers but i do know a team of researchers will make recommendations. Also as i understand it Craig Packer is one of those scientists, someone who has long supported hunting. His methods for me are questionable, using models to research but he has stated that hunters need to step up to the plate or basically he wont support the continued hunting of lion.

quote:

I can only speak from Zambia, and what research has been undertaken here? Leopard prior to the upgrade for example? Leopard are common. Is it not always the big and beautiful, the magnificent of our animals that attracts uneducated attention?

I cannot speak on the number of leopards as i have no education whatsoever in that department. The quotes i have made here about leopard hunting are only based on what i have found post wise.
Of course the bigger, beautiful animals attract more attention. However the smaller, less attractive recieve their fair share too. And honestly beauty and magnificence are in the eye of the beholder.
Uneducated attention? The general public only has the knowledge that is available 'out there'. Most people do not trawl for info on a subject, they just accept what they are told through the media. Most info on lions for example available in the media is from the anti hunter. They get their side out there for the public to see, hunters do not. I have covered this in a few recent posts so won't ramble on about it.

quote:

Until regional scientific research can be conducted then who really knows what the status is of our animals. Last year Zambia reduced it's Lion quota but no one is sure on what grounds? And this question still remains unanswered today.

Do we have a Lion problem or is it purely conjecture? Could it be that country wide there is an overpopulation of Lions? It would seem so on my doorstep but that is hardly sufficient research is it?

Unfortunately sufficient research will not be conducted until the hunting concessions open their gates and let independent researchers in. Sufficient research will not be carried out until independent researchers go to all the national parks and all the wild areas.
Sufficient research balances on independent non-biased researchers being allowed access, being granted money and the time to conduct population counts.

Unfortunately sufficient research will not be conducted until the hunting concessions open their gates and let independent researchers in. Sufficient research will not be carried out until independent researchers go to all the national parks and all the wild areas.
Sufficient research balances on independent non-biased researchers being allowed access, being granted money and the time to conduct population counts.

The door is open and always have been.

As a Brit what are your views on the fox hunting ban? Same as above?

As i understand it the door isn't always open.

Perhaps i should have gone a little further than i did. The anti-hunters and pro-hunters agreeing on who is an independent researcher will probably never happen.

My views on fox hunting? I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say same as above. Could you clarify for me please.

Door is open and we cannot stop research.

Just interested on your views on the fox hunting ban. Was there a quota on foxes? Do you think young foxes were hunted? Would you consider them rare? Did you support the ban etc

jolouburn,

Just to let you know...fairgame works frequently with Dr. Paula White and supports her openly.

He is a very reputable PH and knowledgeable about lion.

He is a good person for you to learn from...as I do.