07 July 2011, 01:01
BrettAKSCIforget it
quote:
Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
quote:
The quota is the same and will be used, regardless of who is shooting the rifle.
perhaps I do not understand what you are saying, but from what I read that is not the case (in Tanzania, as those are the only studies I can find), 2008 saw 50% of the quota filled where the years before that was more in the 30% range.
Were the quotas the same?
Brett
07 July 2011, 02:19
505 gibbsquote:
Were the quotas the same?
Brett
according to "Conservation Status of the Lion in Tanzania" published June, 2010:
quote:
In 2005: 185 lions for an overall offtake of 35.2% of quota allocated
In 2006: 278 lions, for an overall offtake of 57.2%
In 2007: 176 lions for an overall offtake of 34.4%
In 2008: 160 lions for an overall offtake of 30.8%
I am not a "scientist" but believe that I am interpreting this data correctly, someone feel free to correct me if I am not.
I also found the below quote in the same study interesting:
quote:
Considering our estimate of lion population size in Tanzania (i.e. 16,800), tourist hunting in Tanzania harvested a yearly mean of 1.2% (min:0.95; max: 1.7%) of lions ranging in the country over the past four years
07 July 2011, 02:25
505 gibbsquote:
Were the quotas the same?
Brett
My apolgies if the above did not answer your question, below are the quotas for the concerned years according to the Tanzania Wildlife Department:
2005: 525
2006: 486
2007: 511
2008: 520
2009: 519
07 July 2011, 05:47
BrettAKSCIThanks Brad! It would be interesting if BwanaMich, Aaron, Lane, or someone else could supply us with the quota for 2010 and the offtake for 2009 and 2010. Be nice to see if and how it change after the 6 year rule.
Brett
07 July 2011, 10:27
jdollarquote:
Originally posted by maki:
quote:
numbers matter and every one i don't kill will add to the census.
That is the same shit headed logic that the anti's use. The quota is the same and will be used, regardless of who is shooting the rifle.
Dean
Sorry Dean, I guess my tongue-in-cheek sarcasm zipped over your head( although I may well be a shit head, at least according to 3 ex-wives).
07 July 2011, 19:07
dogcatquote:
Originally posted by llamapacker:
Aaron,
While I agree with your concept, the situation you describe is just fraught with potential abuse by the oufitter. Sell all the $60K lion hunts you can, tell most the clients the lions they are seeing are too young (don't let them shoot), keep hunting the same lion(s) multiple times and finally take the lion when it can no longer be denied the lion is old enough. What a valuable lion!
I doubt this happens very often with most of the reputable PH's, but the pressure to be sure a lion is 6+ certainly will influence the PH. The way lion hunts are priced these days (generally) means the client will almost always be inlcined to take a seemingly mature lion, even if the age can't be determined in the field. Switching to a lower base cost and higher trophy fee scenario would do more to encourage hunters to pass on immature lions than any other measure, IMHO.
Bill
This appears to happen more often that we realize. A hunt offered in the discounted hunts forum has stirred up this storm.
07 July 2011, 19:46
505 gibbsquote:
quote:
Originally posted by llamapacker:
Aaron,
While I agree with your concept, the situation you describe is just fraught with potential abuse by the oufitter. Sell all the $60K lion hunts you can, tell most the clients the lions they are seeing are too young (don't let them shoot), keep hunting the same lion(s) multiple times and finally take the lion when it can no longer be denied the lion is old enough. What a valuable lion!
I doubt this happens very often with most of the reputable PH's, but the pressure to be sure a lion is 6+ certainly will influence the PH. The way lion hunts are priced these days (generally) means the client will almost always be inlcined to take a seemingly mature lion, even if the age can't be determined in the field. Switching to a lower base cost and higher trophy fee scenario would do more to encourage hunters to pass on immature lions than any other measure, IMHO.
Bill
quote:
Originally posted by dogcat:
This appears to happen more often that we realize. A hunt offered in the discounted hunts forum has stirred up this storm.
How about this, said by Bwanamich:
quote:
Originally posted by Bwanamich:
If you restrict yourself to shooting only >6 yo lions, you don't need a quota! So if you have a quota of 1 lion (which would probably be what is required!) and you shoot it on the 1st hunt and the next 3 hunters along do see a >6 lion on their trip but are not allowed to shoot it because your quota is done, is that desirable?
You seem to argue that if you have proper quota and these are controlled, it is not a problem if you shoot all 2-3 yo? Well over a 15 - 30 year period, it does make a difference. I won't even go into the economics of a hunting industry (eg Tanzania's) if being restricted to selling only 2-3 lion hunts because your quota is soo limited is your solution.
Does anyone know, that is willing to say, who Bwanamich is? I have asked on another forum to no reply. I have also asked for a clarification on the above statement (and others) by him and recieved nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by jdollar:
quote:
Originally posted by maki:
quote:
numbers matter and every one i don't kill will add to the census.
That is the same shit headed logic that the anti's use. The quota is the same and will be used, regardless of who is shooting the rifle.
Dean
Sorry Dean, I guess my tongue-in-cheek sarcasm zipped over your head( although I may well be a shit head, at least according to 3 ex-wives).
Jdollar,
Looks like I'm the shit head here, I totally missed the sarcasm. Sorry about that. Let's chalk it up to the limitations of the medium, especially before the coffee kicks in.
Dean