Dereck Joubert responds to a hunter on the economics of hunting

After being sent the following offer several times from professional hunter Ivan Carter, award-winning filmmaker, Dereck Joubert decides to reply.

 

ivan-carter-facebook-response

Dear Ivan,

This economic case is intriguing and worth unpacking scientifically and politely. There is a blend of economics and ‘experience’ or emotion in your note, and I will attempt to separate them.

1. We have done much of this list already. Most guests in eco-tourism camps go out each day and do what most hunters do, except of course the experience is different as they actually walk more than trophy hunters do and leave the wildlife intact.

During the period from 1995 to 2003 I took notes on trophy hunting in what was called Area 6 (Linyanti Selinda) in Botswana and between 90-95% of animals were shot from vehicles so very little walking and stalking was involved. This, of course, was illegal but this discussion is about viability not infringements.

2. The photographic tourist with a camera gets up close enough to take a decent image with a 300mm lens, which is about 30% closer than a hunter has to with a high powered rifle and a telescopic sight.

3. It’s a misnomer that each buffalo costs US$3,000 to stalk. This makes a basic assumption error that once you photograph the buffalo, you cannot take another photograph of it, either that day, the next or ever again. An image taken and a bullet fired have two completely different outcomes. The argument presented also assumes that while the buffalo may live for another 15 years, no one else can visit, pay the fees or photograph the buffalo. Great Plains provides free cameras in most of its camps and the resulting statistics are revealing: most people take about 1,000 images a day. With a burn rate (those that are not keepers) of 50%, that implies 500 photographic trophies per day per person or couple! It is not fair to equate one photograph to one bullet. One bullet ends the potential. Whereas I would argue that each photograph gets taken back to the visitor’s circle of friends and serves as a brochure for more travellers to visit that same buffalo. One bullet? End of that cycle.

We once did a survey in Savuti in Botswana and calculated the value of a male lion dead (as a trophy) versus its value as an eco-tourism asset. It is complicated but its value dead was US$15,000 at that time whereas its value alive was around US$2,000,000. This is because of that basic oversight in your argument: a photographed lion yawns at the dawn repeatedly for photographs for over 10 years, attracting fees and lodging costs and also, importantly, distributing value down the chain to airlines, wages, curios, communities and food purchases (none of which were actually included in the US$2M calculation). However, one bullet ends those yawns in the sunrise forever for that lion.

Today you can hunt a lion for about US$23,000 for a male and, shockingly, just US$9,000 for a lioness! Who wants to shoot a lioness by the way? A rare white lion will set you back about US$30,000. Who wants to shoot a rare white lion and end its life? I could run the numbers again in today’s terms and we would find a proportionate increase in its value to be kept alive and wild.

© Pius Mahimbi

© Pius Mahimbi

4 An average stay at a place in Botswana like the Zarafa Dhow Suite or Mombo will cost you US$2,500 per day per person, whereas the average lodging fees for most hunting companies (I researched about 40) tends to be around US$350-$450 per person.

5. Another miscalculation is in the sum that goes to government. According to three sources, this is calculated to be less than 5% of the price paid for the trophy, rather than your calculation of a third. And one of these sources was a government of Botswana study in 1999 and later a study by Animal Rights of Africa in 2008. Similar results are cropping up in IFAW and other NGO studies.

6. All of the Great Plains camps do actually give US$100 to communities as a conservancy or community fee as do many others, so that is at least equalled in your ‘offer’. However, most hunting concessions can only service 12-15 or so hunters a year. Even on a seven day safari, that is at best 20 clients a year. So the average hunting operation produces US$15,000 in community fees in a five month hunting season. From one camp like Mara Plains, at a 60% occupancy of 14 guests per night for 12 months, the community fee would be US$306,000. Even if we remove from this any anti-poaching contribution, which on a hunting concession calculation may be US$15,000 (as per your note), a very liberal comparison would work out as a net benefit to community and conservation of US$30,000 for hunting versus US$300,000 for a photographic trip.

7. Keeping the animals alive is clearly more viable but this also increases exponentially if you take into consideration the addition of their offspring to the ecosystem. In the case of lions, each male lion would be adding a further US$2M every time a cub survives to adulthood, and lions have an average output of about six cubs in their lifetimes.

8. The entire safari cost of US$20,000-$25,000 that you quote equates to a ten day photographic safari with Great Plains. That excludes flights and tips etc. However, I see that if there are two people on a hunt, the fee goes down by about 33% for the second person so a trophy hunt for two people would be about 15% less than an average photographic safari. Hence photographic safaris in some cases already exceed the prices achieved from hunting.

9. So yes, converting that land to non-hunting ground would probably make more money, especially if your business model, which now aims at 15 people, could be increased to 100 as per your request.

10. To summarise, it is not possible to win any economic argument for hunting so it comes down to an emotional one. It is ironic that the hunting representatives urge everyone not to get emotional about the subject and yet hunters come to Africa to get the (emotional) thrill of killing. Anyone who says that it is for conservation can simply write a cheque to any of the great NGOs saving wildlife today.

The argument for hunting gets thinner each time it is tested. Ultimately, it may be reduced to some small game farms in South Africa but it should certainly not exist in the wild.

Dereck

Leupold

Dereck Joubert

Dereck and Beverly Joubert are award-winning filmmakers from Botswana. Their mission is the conservation and understanding of the large predators and key African wildlife species that determine the course of all conservation in Africa.

  • Bundubele

    Well presented, clear thinking. Sums add up. Anything else?

    • James Kydd

      Conservation is not a morality play, but don’t try telling that to Kendall Jones. A 19-year-old student and cheerleader at Texas Tech, Jones has been hunting big game in Africa with her father since she was nine. This past July, she posted photos on Facebook of herself with her kills — leopard, lion, hippo, zebra, elephant, rhino. The response was overwhelming: 325,000 people signed a petition asking Facebook to remove the images, which it did, saying the act violated its rule about “graphic images shared for sadistic effect or to celebrate or glorify violence.” The “Kill Kendall Jones” page remained for three days before Facebook removed it, too.

      Jones was hardly the only hunter to find herself on the wrong side of public anger over their trophies. Axelle Despiegelaere, a Belgian World Cup fan, had her brief modeling career cut short when she posted a picture of herself with an oryx she had shot. Corey Knowlton, a Texas hunter who paid $350,000 at a Dallas Safari Club auction for a permit to kill a black rhino in Namibia, received death threats against his children.

      Kendall Jones and many others, including conservationists and scientists with long experience in Africa, argue that trophy hunting helps fund conservation efforts and does no ecological harm. There are good reasons to be wary about such claims. The pictures of smiling hunters with their trophies, and the very idea of rich Texans paying handsomely to kill rare animals for sport are proof enough for many people that safari hunting is at best an anachronism and at worst an abhorrence that must be stopped. Conservation is about saving animals. Hunting is about killing them.

      Hunting raises legitimate moral questions, but its potential role in conservation cannot be assessed solely in moral terms. For one thing, the people in Africa who stand to benefit (or not) from safari hunting have utterly different and often irreconcilable attitudes toward hunting than their Western opponents. The challenge for conservationists is to formulate a baseline for judging if and when hunting can contribute to conservation. Who controls the land and resources that support game animals? Who benefits from those resources, and can they be distributed in ways that that help conservation efforts?

      Science plays an crucial role in answering these questions, but the debate goes far beyond science to issues of human rights, political ecology, criminology, public health, and economics. The most successful efforts to bring safari hunting and conservation together are not based on either moral or scientific judgements alone, but rather on the principal of self-determination, communities choosing how to use land to which they claim some degree of ownership.

      Neither trophy hunting nor community-based natural resource management can be tied directly to many dramatic conservation successes. Neither remotely resemble panaceas for Africa’s myriad ills. Yet both remain part of the debate because, when done right, they stem from the same powerful dynamic: the shift of power from the center to the periphery, from national governments still burdened by corruption or postcolonial bureaucracies, or both, to the rural communities at the frontline of conservation. If people who share their land with Africa’s wild animals can benefit directly from conserving them, the results can be impressive, and trophy hunting has been at the center of some of CBNRM’s most notable successes.

      The experience in Namibia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, while far from uniform, demonstrates both how trophy hunting can contribute to conservation but also the many conditions that must be met and how fragile the balance among conflicting goals and ideals can be. While a movement from the center to the periphery is critical, for example, central government still plays an important role and the reality is that for CBNRM approaches to work it must fulfill criteria at a variety of scales, from rural communities all the way to central government and at times internationally.

      II.

      Wealthy hunters will pay huge sums to hunt Africa’s most famous game species, the so-called big five — elephants, rhinos, buffalo, lions, and leopards. Many populations of these animals live in areas of desperate human poverty. But the juxtaposition of poor people and a potentially valuable wild resource does not mean that the exploitation of one will necessarily lead to the betterment of the other. With appropriate scientific guidance, shooting a small number of animals will not do lasting ecological damage. But that is not enough. What are the institutional arrangements that would make trophy hunting viable as a conservation strategy?

      Namibia offers one illustration. In 1996, Namibia enacted landmark legislation that gave tribal communities — who previously had limited rights to resources on communal lands — the ability manage and directly benefit from their wildlife. The rationale was straightforward: poverty and the lack of human development in the country meant that a conservation approach based on protected areas, law enforcement, and non-utilization principles would not work, or would be too expensive to sustain in the long-term.

      Conservancies in Namibia quickly began striking deals with tourism companies. Many conservancies allow trophy hunting because it is far easier to get a hunting concession running than to build the lodges and other infrastructure needed for photo safaris. The fees paid by the operators go directly to the communities. The early returns prompted other communities to create conservancies, and there are now 79 conservancies that cover nearly 58,000 square miles, about the size of Georgia. Total land under some form of conservation management has increased to more than 42 percent of the country’s land area, three times that of the United States and one of the highest percentages in the world. Thirty-two of the communal conservancies are adjacent to or in key corridors between national parks, thus strengthening Namibia’s protected area network.

      In 2012, the conservancies generated over $4 million in cash income and an additional $1 million in in-kind benefits (such as the distribution of harvested game meat). This amounts to more than $300 per person, a substantial amount in a country where over 60 percent of the population, most in the rural areas where conservancies operate, live on less than $1 per day.

      One element in the success of conservancies in Namibia is that fact that in much of the country the opportunity costs of conservation are low, as the arid lands do not support much beyond subsistence agriculture. Wildlife is far better adapted to the conditions and may represent the highest economic return. But even in the northeastern part of the country, which is much like the rest of east and southern Africa with its treed savannas and decent rain, conservancies have taken hold. The approach has even spread beyond communal areas, as some private landowners in so-called commercial conservancies are taking down fences to make larger landscapes and switching from cattle to wildlife.

      Even though trophy hunting is a key revenue source for many conservancies, wildlife population trends have proven to be stable or increasing across regions where conservancies are operating. Until quite recently the trend even held for black rhino, which increased in Namibia while in decline almost everywhere else on the continent. The recent spike in demand for rhino horn, however, has driven the price so high that not even the financial incentives provided by the conservancies are enough to protect them, and poaching has been on the increase, especially in the northeast.

      Despite the worrisome uptick in poaching, it is clear that people in rural Namibia see the value in sharing their land with wildlife, even the occasional crop-raiding elephant, because they make the decisions. They can sell a hunting permit for that elephant for $10,000, set the quotas and choose who to sell them to, and eat the meat. The conservancies thus address a key threat to wildlife: a political ecology in which benefits from wildlife accrue to people who bear none of the costs. While CBNRM is far from a universal success, where it has made a difference for both people and wildlife is has done so by redressing this imbalance.

      There are still other conditions that must be met before trophy hunting can reliably contribute to conservation: good governance with transparency in laws, regulations, and enforcement; citizens with respect for those laws; an army of biological scientists and enforcement officers; and a public demand for conservation. Where trophy hunting fails to contribute to conservation the proprietary rights of landholders are weak and benefits are captured by other stakeholders through bureaucracy, excessive fees, and corruption.

      While the idea of devolving authority over wildlife — including the right to allow trophy hunting — to landowners, including communal landowners, has spread in Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia, a very different approach is firmly in place elsewhere in Africa, most notably in Kenya. Kenya banned all consumptive use of wild species in 1977: no sport hunting, cropping, ranching, live capture and sale, taxidermy, trophies, or souvenirs. The country used the hunting ban to build its brand as the destination for wildlife tourism in Africa, and it developed a thriving industry that brings in millions of dollars each year.

      Such a tourist industry requires a vast and expensive infrastructure, including airports, roads, and hotels. It also requires political stability, a pleasant climate, and large numbers of readily findable animals. Few places on Earth, let alone Africa, have that combination. Kenya’s high savannas are perfect; Tanzania’s miombo woodland, Zimbabwe’s thornscrub, and Namibia’s desert are not. Hunters will put up with the tougher conditions of those habitats so long as the game are present, but it is nearly impossible to create a luxury photo tourism industry there.

      Since hunting was banned in Kenya wildlife populations have dropped by 80 percent. There are far too many confounding factors to attribute direct cause and effect of either banning or promoting trophy hunting to the fate of wildlife populations in Kenya and any country in southern Africa, but the dynamic is at least sufficient to give one pause when making the claim that hunting is per se bad for Africa’s wildlife. Yet that is precisely the claim that is often made.

      Blame for the drop in wildlife in Kenya and across Africa cannot at this point by lain at the doorstep of trophy hunters. The leading causes are habitat loss caused by expanding human settlement, agriculture, and other kinds of land use incompatible with wildlife, followed by uncontrolled hunting, usually for bushmeat. In short, uncompetitive returns from wildlife compared with those from livestock or agriculture create incentives for landowners to convert any rangeland with agricultural potential to cultivation.

      As habitat disappears, the risk of conflict between people and large and dangerous animals increases. Such conflicts are rarely resolved in favor of wildlife, unless people have exceptionally strong incentives to do so. The challenge of creating such incentives are so significant that some conservationists believe it may be time to abandon the ideal of coexistence and instead admit that the only solution is to separate people and wildlife altogether, with fences.

      Fences are as hot-button an issue as hunting. They symbolize the loss of wilderness, not its salvation. Private, fenced ranches in South Africa have done well in restoring some game populations and converting farmland back to something more closely resembling its wild state, though the extent to which that is the case is subject to debate. The idea of putting up fences on the East Africa savannas will generate intense opposition, but Craig Packer, a leading researcher on lions and long-time resident of Tanzania, makes just such an argument. Fenced reserves are cheaper and more effective at conserving lions; nearly half the unfenced lion populations may decline to near extinction in the next 20 to 40 years, Packer argues.

      Packer is neither a reflexive supporter nor opponent of hunting. For one thing, he points out that the $10,000 fee to hunt a lion in Tanzania is far too low and, in any event, little of that money gets back to the local community. After analyzing data on harvest trends across Tanzania’s hunting blocks Packer and colleagues found that the intensity of trophy hunting was the factor most responsible for lion declines. Yet even so Packer does not rule out the possibility that hunting may be beneficial in some circumstance and his recommendation was not to ban hunting but to lower the quotas.

      The fact is that any species can be hunted sustainably, outside of the extreme case of removing the last reproductively viable male or female, if the science and enforcement are good enough. But there is ecological sustainability and there is economic sustainability, and they don’t necessarily overlap. With rare species, the level of ecologically sustainable hunting would be too low by themselves to keep an outfitter in business and contributing to local economies, The exception may be those few species that command extraordinary fees. So the $350,000 paid for the rhino in Namibia, while it stoked massive outrage, could be appropriate if most of that money made it back to the communities in whose hands the future rhinos and their habitat ultimately lies.

      Few places other than a handful of locations in Africa have animals that are as desirable for hunters. It may be the case that trophy hunting is only viable where there are healthy populations of elephants and rhinos, or perhaps with particularly rare and valuable sheep like markhor, a species of mountain goat native to the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Permits for markhor can go for $150,000 each and there are efforts to set up conservancies akin to those in Namibia to direct most of that money to local communities.

      III.

      The debate we should be having is not whether trophy hunting is moral or immoral, but whether it can be justified on scientific and conservation grounds, who ultimately benefits from it, and what kind of conservation it can support. But that is not how the debate plays out in the Western media, and, in some cases, within African governments themselves. Organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and others have sophisticated lobbying and fundraising efforts and they now wield enormous influence. Unfortunately, that influence often rests on painting Africa, Africans, and hunters with such a broad brush that it obscures rather than clarifies the fundamental questions.

      In 2006, the Kenyan government announced a major review of conservation policy. The Humane Society, IFAW, and others feared this was the first step toward reintroducing trophy hunting and mobilized to stop it. Animal welfare groups paid activists to disrupt public meeting on the new policy, orchestrated an anti-sport hunting media campaign on television, radio and in the press, with anti-hunting posters in the streets and at Nairobi’s international airport, prevented mainstream conservation organizations from presenting their views, and funded the creation of local, anti-hunting NGOs. A proposal to allow more use of wildlife, even though it delayed reconsideration of the hunting ban itself, was withdrawn.

      Botswana for many years allowed trophy hunting and had had among the healthiest game populations on the continent. In 2014, however, Botswana banned all hunting on public land. Among the most prominent voices advocating for the ban were filmmakers Dereck and Beverly Joubert, who have close ties to both the President of Botswana, Ian Khama, and animal welfare organizations, including IFAW.

      Hunters are losing or have already lost their social license to operate in many places. If hunting is to make a meaningful contribution to conservation they need to get it back. This is not a question of mustering scientific evidence about sustainability; it is as much, or more, about perception and emotion, and hunters have been strangely slow to understand the terms of fight they are now in. The way in which hunters respond to the deeply felt belief among a growing number of people that killing wild creatures for sport is always and in every circumstance wrong may determine whether is has a future, regardless of scientific evidence regarding sustainability. Hunters need to accept this as a legitimate concern; the failure to do so is what leads to the in-your-face trophy shots. Hunters need to demonstrate high ethical standards, clear connections to broader conservation, and local empowerment. Even then, hunters and conservationist need to recognize that what works in one place will not necessarily work in another.

      Given the long history of hunting on Africa, and the place it holds in the Western imagination, it is easy to forget that the current model of commercial recreational hunting in southern Africa is just 30 years old. It continues to evolve to fit changing circumstances. It would be foolish in the extreme to decide now that it has no place in future conservation, just as it would be foolish to assume that hunting by itself will be integral to both conservation and development.

      • Bundubele

        Great reply but after reading this, I’d still rather spend my money on treating my family on a fun hoilday in Orlando without guns…..

      • Ed Camilleri

        Trophy hunting has no place in today’s world. It is completely artificial and without any value whatsoever. Learn to shoot animals with a camera and you will never regret this

        • Land Use Economics
        • James Kydd

          2011 Goldman Prize winner Raoul du Toit is the Director of the Lowveld Rhino Trust in Zimbabwe and has worked to support rhino conservation since 1986. He works around the large Lowveld reserves to monitor rhinos, address injuries, reinforce efforts to tackle poaching, and build community awareness of the need to protect rhinos. Du Toit has been growing increasingly concerned about the international outcry, which has led to a suspension by the Zimbabwean government of all hunting-related activities in the area where Cecil was killed, and what this means for the endangered black rhino.

          “Our large rhino populations, while not hunted themselves [hunting of rhinos is not allowed in Zimbabwe], depend on safari hunting to maintain the economic viability of the large conservancies in which they are protected. Therefore, any reduction in the economic viability of these areas through a knee-jerk reaction to safari hunting would be of grave concern, and I have to juggle the views of some anti-hunting donors with the harsh realities on the ground.”

          Du Toit understandably does all he can to protect the numbers of an already dwindling species from further harm. This position has meant that his views may seem controversial but are key to understanding what du Toit and other activists working in conservation have to deal with every day:

          “Hunting can be a crucial land-use activity that maintains wild areas, especially in regions where tourism is limited and where agricultural options would soon displace wildlife unless the wildlife resources were generating income. Without the safari hunting, conservancies would not survive against other land-use pressures, so safari hunting has a crucial indirect, positive impact on the conservation of rhinos and many other rare species such as cheetahs.”

          Du Toit is not alone. 1993 Goldman Prize [co-] winner, Dr. Margaret Jacobson, is a community conservation consultant and a board member of the Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation Trust. She has lived and worked in Namibia for 30 years, and sees a benefit from trophy hunting for the local communities.

          “Communities who share their land with dangerous and destructive wildlife (lions taking domestic stock, elephants breaking water points and damaging crops to name just a few issues) earn income from trophy hunting concessions. Thus living with and managing wildlife becomes worthwhile, and conservation of wildlife, done in an African way, becomes more sustainable.”

          She also does not consider modern trophy hunting to be the primary threat to many endangered species where she works:

          “Trophy hunting is not why wildlife is declining in most African countries. The real problem is not that small band of macho men and women who (for reasons that are beyond me) enjoy paying large sums of money to hunt wild animals, but our modern lifestyles and our ever increasing population.”

          – See more at: https://africageographic.com/blog/cecil-storm-3-experts-air-views/#sthash.U4nzUcFb.dpuf

        • Schroederville

          AGREED!

    • d miles

      Trophy hunting has a place in society.the animals where bred fore such ocasions

      • Ed Camilleri

        Then they must not be bred anymore for such despicable “occasions”. Learn to appreciate nature, we cannot continue this unnecessary killing spree

      • Tracy London

        Your appalling grammar and spelling give away your lack of brain cells. You embarrass yourself with your immature comments.

        • Mark

          Seems to be a thing. The first line of Ivan’s post had me thinking, “Tut, tut. Now, Ivan, ‘I’ before ‘E’ except after ‘C’.”

    • dmiles

      Verry vegan and ameturish

      • Bundubele

        Thank you for your point of view. It costs no-one.

      • Derek Du Toit

        What an absurd comment. I suggest you look up the words ‘vegan’ and ‘amateurish’ (please note spelling) on Google. I think you may be verry (sic) surprised…

  • Derek Joubert is wrong
    • Bundubele

      Sir, thank you for that insight to another region under pressure. Whilst the policies have as you say failed, surely this is not that they are neccessarily ill-conceived or wrong. That they are not wanted, ignored, flagrantly breached and underfunded is no question. That there is systematic inflexibilty and little transparency I understand, but Mr Joubert is not incorrect either. You mentioned the ‘trillions’ that could be available – and they are – which could fund or be used to invest in various different ideas about wildlife and human interaction. I fear the reality is the investors have seen the mess of historical instabilty and anarchy and are weary to invest. What can be done? The words ‘Glasnost’ come to mind and ‘Peristroika’. This need not be radical, but requires gentle pressure through reasoning and persuasion to bring some to their senses. There are many people like yourself who care diligently for your environment and the people in it – it becomes a real challenge when your efforts are unappreciated I’m sure, but all you can do is continue to educate us. My principles remain unchanged, but by enlarge my opinion is that it is the job of those who minister to do exactly that or subject themselves to their justice system.

      • Bob Frump

        so poor African nations should be forced to preserve animals that eat crops –and families? How would that play in your country? You sound like a smart fellow. Do some research. Banning hunters is emotional. But worthless

        • Bundubele

          Thank-you for your reply but I think you misunderstand me Bob. I am a geographer at heart and not a wildlife professional, but I understand a hunt would be necessary in certain circumstances. This would be if the animal was definitely a danger to humans, be this as ‘food’ or whether the animal(s) indeed threatened life indirectly due to crop raiding etc… Hunt if you want to but I’ve seen the wrecking job the industry does to people, families and communities simply because it is so emotional and high risk. Someone else suggested that ‘fun ‘hunting could take place if the animal was darted then given a medical examination, inoculations etc. The hunter would get his kick, a photo and the animal could walk away.

        • Real African

          I live in Africa and I’m a smart fellow. “Eat crops–and families”, you’re taking the piss right!?? Please Educate yourself if you’d prefer to have facts and not self-righteous reasons to believe trophy hunting is anything but a cruel sadistic act of killing for fun

          • Graeme Pollock

            Maybe in Sandton ,Cape Town wildlife does not kill people or eat crops but you would be surprised that most of Africa is wild with wild animals and the people who live with them deal with them on a daily basis. Look up Man eaters of Tanzania, you will be further surprised in one area alone nearly 100 people were killed by maneaters.try google crop raiding elephant’s in Africa. You may just be surprised and hopefully enlightened about the continent you live in.

    • Randy Decker

      With the crisis of having to act NOW and act in a meaningful way that will effect the wild animals, I can’t think of any other way to fix the problem. Derek is right… And it is a fact the system Kenya has and so many other African Nations have does not work! Animals are applying the ultimate cost… ! Come up with something better.. The photo trips… Nice idea….what I don;t like are your prices that are terribly high. Photographs of Water Buffalo for $3000…? $25,000 trips that have you in tents and bring your own water… Will give a great real world way to see the wild, but you need to price this accordingly… Much like the Hunting Safari Groups.. You can say money goes to the locals.. you can say a great many things. In reality it’s your money and you control it…

      • nimblejack

        What an exaggeration of comments mainly from those with an interest and healthy bank balance earned from hunting ..
        Who says Kenya’s wildlife has decreased by 80% ??
        Richard Leakey??? No..
        Whose been counting it? Difficult because there arnt many fences around Places like Tsavo East or west.
        How did you think nature regulated itself through selection and survival of the strongest before people with guns turned up?
        Then you critisize nature !
        Ironically The Namibia you declare as an example used to have a migration – where is it now.. it used to have one of the largest populations of Cheetah – now decimated ..and the lorries lined up waiting to be loaded with the carcasses of dead animals like Zebra and Wilderbeest slaughtered in their thousands with government knowledge..
        Rare desert Elephants and Lions – how many left now.,??
        Go ask some questions and find out.. Don’t come here with whistful siren songs of how bad things are in Kenya and Botswana when more people are employed in the tourist industry and service industries than hunting ever managed.

        You are sick enough to see money signs when you see an animal you would like to kill
        For money where normal people see a creature of grace and beauty..you stay home and ‘conserve’ your own wildlife like the passenger pigeon . .or the Bison you almost eradicated ..go moan theres too many deer while ignoring you killed off their natural predators..and reflect what other flora and fauna have ready been wiped out in your America!

        • Randy Decker

          I think I said the wrong name in the beginning. I meant I liked Calvin’s comments in the video… I meant I liked any idea that helps keep the animals from being hunted. As for your photo trips! Love it! Go for it! But your prices are for the Wealthy as well.. Ya know finding a Water Buffalo and photographing it is not hard to do in almost any of the tourist lodges and truck trips they have… lots of great photo’s and memories and a really nice place to stay. If your offering a more real experience…. out in the bush… this is great! You’ll get some to do it. But if your pricing was more realistic for the expenses you don’t have… and if we had some way to know your actually sending the money where it needs to go… And not just making a fortune on wildlife that IS NOT YOURS TO OWN and make money on… You might make this happen… I am not your enemy… watch the video,I sent. This mans ideas are not bad at all. And you can’t save but one area even if your suggestion was well received. This man is talking about a way that might work all over the continent.

          • Jill Robinson

            Would be nice if you all got your animals straight – water buffalo are asian; Cape buffalo are African.

        • Bob Frump

          pretty clear facts on Kenya. 10000 lions in 1970. Only about 2000 and falling now. Official government stats. You can argue why –but not the numbers. Lion conservation in Kenya is horrible.

  • Jim Duke

    Well said Derek Joubert.

  • Lynn O

    Fortunately for the Wildlife Species of Africa, you and your Wife are caring Animal Lovers with hearts that work and not like the Hunters and Trophy/Can Hunters with their dead egos.
    Our African Animals have the right to be free, not abused and hurt, not terrorized and murdered, not bred for an Arrow or Bullet either. We are their voices, their Protectors and their safe place to be, no matter what excuse anybody comes up with to justify Hunting, it is not acceptable to the Animal Kingdom and not acceptable to the Humans who love them. Thank You both for your brilliant work that you’ve both done over many years. Saving our African Wildlife especially our African Lions, Rhinos and Elephants is a top priority

    • Lynn O

      Illegal wildlife trade is currently gaining
      unprecedented high level international attention.
      It has been raised as a serious issue at the UN
      General Assembly and UN Security Council, the
      G8 and the European Parliament, and by national
      and regional government-led initiatives in Africa
      and Asia.4 Its rapid rise up the political agenda is
      driven partly by huge increases in poaching of
      African elephants5 and rhinos, and by concerns
      for these and other already threatened species.
      Concern is also driven by the trade’s suggested
      links to large-scale organised crime and militant
      groups, and the repercussions for national and
      international security.
      But these immediate threats mask a wider issue.
      Wildlife is a key asset for rural communities,
      providing a foundation for investment, livelihoods

      and economic development. Poaching depletes
      this asset, limiting options for sustainable local
      and national development.
      In South Africa, for example, protected area
      authorities have reaped substantial financial
      benefits by selling live
      rhinos to private ranches
      for tourism and trophy
      hunting. The revenue
      generated has funded
      rhino and elephant
      protection in South
      Africa’s national parks,
      and has subsidised other
      conservation initiatives. The strategy has also
      engaged the private sector, which now holds
      more land for wildlife ranching than is held in
      national or provincial protected areas.6 But
      escalating poaching of rhinos and hence the
      costs of effective protection and law enforcement
      mean the private sector is disinvesting.

      International policy discussions on illegal wildlife
      trade are focusing on a few iconic species and on
      transnational trade involving organised crime. But
      much of the international wildlife trade is both
      legal and sustainable, and contributes
      significantly to both conservation and/or
      development. International attention to illegal
      wildlife trade must not cast all wildlife use in a bad
      light. There are cases where local people have
      ably demonstrated sustainable use of wildlife,
      including threatened species, bringing
      considerable conservation success.

      Recognise sustainable use as a crucial
      livelihood imperative and conservation
      incentive. Incentives are integral to any
      conservation or development endeavour, and are
      needed even where there is no illegal wildlife
      trade. Under the right conditions, sustainable
      wildlife use and trade can provide enough
      incentive (and finance) to deliver both
      conservation and development goals.
      Strategies to address illegal wildlife trade need to
      acknowledge and support sustainable use
      (consumptive and non-consumptive) and trade
      better. Creating incentives through communitybased
      resource management and locally
      controlled wildlife-based enterprises should be
      part of future interventions. At the very least,
      strategies to address illegal wildlife trade in
      iconic, endangered species should not harm
      other opportunities for sustainable wildlife use
      and trade or inadvertently penalise the poor.

    • Schroederville

      Thank you, Lynn O! #TRUTH

  • Duncan Watson

    Well presented Mr Joubert. But you speak of pristine wilderness paradises when you go on about all the income generated by the non-consumptive safari arena – how much of Botswana(Seeing as that is your area of concern and apparent expertise) does the Chobe and Okovonga delta cover? 15%? 20%(Maybe)? Do people pay $2500 a night for 10 days in the Makgadikgadi area – or millions upon millions of hectares of scrub mopane and thornveld that make up a good portion of the rest of the country – that has until recently been protected from agriculture by the economic benefits of consumptive safaris.

    No-one – not a hunter; not an operator; not a subsistence farmer – wants hunting to happen in YOUR national parks…but take a moment to step out of your self styled eco-warrior bubble and consider the bigger picture of Botswana, of Southern Africa of Africa as a whole….Do you honestly feel that cessation of all commercial hunting is the answer to preservation of Africa’s wildlife heritage? Are you happy to stand up and claim that YOU single-handedly took the preservation of wildlife in peripheral wildlife areas through regulated consumptive safaris, out of the hands of hunters and placed it into the hands of poachers or at best farmers protecting their livelihoods?

    Duncan, Zimbabwe

    • Derek Saul

      what are the hunters preserving ? Their next kill ? Are you saying a more tourist based direction to wildlife conservation cannot work ? That it needs thee hunters to ‘protect’ the animals ? Not sure what you are on about – explain

      • TopDave

        What he’s saying is that tourism is great, but it’s limited. Tourists won’t go into the areas where hunters do because the bush it too thick and you won’t see it as easily. If they shut down those areas, then poachers will move in. What you guys don’t understand is that more wildlife exists outside of the tourism parks.

  • Charlie Malone

    Someone needs to be the Voices of these Animals, Lions, Elephants, Rhinos, Leopards, Cheetahs, Hippos, etc. I believe for ever one of these Animals that are Poached, or Hunted with a “license” or the Canned hunting, for every human that Kills one of these Big Cats, and Great Beasts that God placed in OUR Protection, they should receive no less than 100 years PER Bullet in an African Jail. Better yet, strip them down, NO weapons, and throw them to the Lions. Wouldn’t hurt my feelings at all for any of these Murderers to die at the hands of God’s Animals.

    • Graeme Pollock

      Nothing like trying to debate with a reasonable balanced person , who respects all life , your entire post is a oxymoron , look it up. And by the way referring all the time to our God , if its a Christian God you refer to , you need to read the bible on killing any human being for any reason .

  • Jason Priestly

    Isn’t it sad that we need to rely on economic arguments as justification for keeping our wildlife alive?

    • TopDave

      Someone didn’t take economics to better understand how the world works. That isn’t changing anytime soon. Bleeding hearts will kill more wildlife though if they make sport hunting illegal.

  • Ian Stuart Lewis

    I would love to see Mr. Joubert make any kind of wildlife dicumentary let alone award winning ones in any of the marginal areas of Africa set aside for hunting. I am sure he would EVENTUALLY as he is mighty tallented, but game is so thin on the ground in these areas as the grazing and water is so sparce that no photographic operator could ever ecconomically survive there. They are only suitable for sport hunting and as such expand the range of protected wildlife areas around Africa significantly! Deal with that. It is the reality whether you like it or not. Removing interested parties from such large areas where photographics can not opperate is tentamoint to the end of wildlife in 60% of Africas wild spaces.

  • John Kinnaird

    Derek, You have gained a reputation as a wildlife photographer and have dedicated your life to filming the animals in a tiny part of Botswana. The reality is that there are massive swathes of Africa that are arid , Inaccessible and where you can drive all day and see a handful of animals if you are lucky.
    There are Zero photographic tourists who will ever go to a place where the animals are not standing by the side of the road or waterhole waiting to be photographed like Cecil.
    Hwange is a massive Park surrounded by very marginal areas, no surface water, a hungry and restive rural population and virtually no animals.
    Nobody ever goes there! Mana Pools is another example, Unless you travel the Park within 5 km of Zambezi or at a radius of 2 km of Chitake Spring or a hadful of seasonal pans during the dry season you will not see any animals.
    The subsistence farmer who lives say 3 km from the border with Hwange National Park in the Hwange Communal area who is utterly dependant on his tiny patch of arable land for a crop of maize or millet for the survival of his family for the ensuing 12 months is going to mighty angry when a herd of Jumbo waltz over the border and scoff the whole lot one evening. Or maybe the brother of Cecil will visit one evening and kill & eat one of his only 2 draught oxen.
    The photographic tourists also do not want to visit his village because his living conditions are primitive, his children ravaged by disease and malnutrition wearing rags and they have to trek 5 km every day to collect water.
    If the hunters are no longer there to assist him with keeping the animals away from his crops and the photographic tourists do not come because they are embarrassed to see the difference between their lavish lifestyles and his desperation, he does have an alternative.
    The easiest is to kill the elephant with cyanide, harvest the tusks and sell them to the ever present corrupt local officials with their Chinese or Vietnamese connections and make enough money to keep his family alive for a few years and not have to worry whether the elephants eat his maize or not.
    The idealistic concept of the noble villager living an idyllic lifestyle surrounded by passive and beautiful wild animals living in harmony with his livestock is in stark contrast to the reality on the ground.
    There is enough space throughout Africa for both trophy hunting in the marginal areas and comfortable photographic safaris in well managed reserves.
    The visceral knee jerk reactions of indignation to seeing dead trophy animals posted on facebook by trophy hunters by the armchair conservationists is understandable.
    However for Derek Joubert or John Varty to post romantic opinions on the evils of trophy hunting is disingenuous. They are both well aware of the reality that there are many thousands more animals that will die daily from starvation, poisoning or poaching for “bushmeat” without even a murmur of indignation because there is nobody around to take photos of the dead animal.

    • Bundubele

      I like this post because it reveals some home truths. I don’t agree with it all, but I like it!

      • Graeme Pollock

        Sentiment is stronger than fact , and respect for your opinion, ours is not to change your belief but to give people the truth so they can make honest decisions.

        • Bundubele

          Interestingly, sentimental fact is acceptable to all, is it not?

    • Bundubele

      My only comment is that if local charities and government cannot cope with rural or urban poverty, is this not the basis to allow international agencies to help with the problem? Are we not in a global village?

    • Peter Egan

      John, You make some very sweeping statements here about photographic tourists, most of which seem either prejudiced or based on stereotypes. I’ve been a photographic ‘tourist’ throughout Africa for over 30 years and can assure you that I’ve spent many many hours driving or walking through the bush with little to see, but you know what, the great thing about Africa is you never know when something will suddenly present itself however one thing is certain if hunting continues alongside poaching on the scale it is today then even that possibility will be removed.

      Contrary to what you believe many photographic holiday companies specifically include visits to local villages/ schools because many tourists especially from North America and Europe want to visit a village and help in some way, the image you paint of primitive villages with disease ridden children seems to me one of a bitter and twisted white Zimbabwean and is not representative of the countries in the region. That’s not to say the rural areas aren’t very poor but that is more a comment on the government and the economy which is what Dereck Joubert alludes to when he talks about the value of an animal alive rather than dead..

      Your other point about wildlife/human conflict is an age old issue that will continue with or without hunting because its about diminishing space not the absence of hunting. Your idealistic image of the brave hunter who goes to the defence of the poor local farmer by shooting an Elephant or Lion is as far away from reality as your point about the locals idyllic lifestyle surrounded by passive animals.

      The reality is hunting companies are luring the likes of Cecil out of the protected areas because there is little or no game left in the hunting concessions which meets what their clients want to show off to their friends back in the USA or wherever and Derecks point is a simple one that once killed then the value of that animal is lost forever whereas with photographic safari its value goes on and on.

      • Graeme Pollock

        The mere fact you continue to push the lie that the hunters lured Cecil from the Park explains itself. If you took the time to find the truth you would know Cecil unfortunately left the Park to follow a lioness who was feeding on a elephant carcass. I know anti hunters hate the truth so they perpetuate lies. Google the official reports.
        As to photographic safaris to marginal low density wildlife areas: in fantasy land these areas would remain un poached and protected, in the reality of Africa where people are hungry the few photo tourists’ won’t sustain these areas of conservation importance. Whereas the high income from hunting will. Simple truth. Something the anti hunters hate.

        • Peter Egan

          If you Google Cecil the lion then ALL the results in the first three pages state Cecil was allegedly lured out of the NP. However lets give you the benefit of doubt and suppose he did follow a Lioness to feed on an Ele carcass, isn’t that in itself remarkable given you are adamant in your other response to me above that Elephant meat from hunting areas (which Cecil had entered) is distributed to the villages, so what happened here, the land owner couldn’t be bothered cutting it up for the poor folk or as is more likely it never happened like this.

          Even if it did then both the land owner and the PH were still breaking the law in allowing Palmer to shoot Cecil because neither had a licence to take a Lion on this land, something they knew full well when they beheaded and skinned him in short order and then tried to hide the collar he was wearing. Finally Palmer has form on this having been prosecuted in the States for illegally shooting a bear, all simple truth which you pro hunting guys with your antiquated view of ‘use it or lose it’ hate.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Without doubt the greatest threat to wildlife are the lies and misinformation perpetuated by anti hunting and sustainable use evangelist’s.
            Start with the question how would these donation driven organizations survive if they could not raise money if they could not appeal to peoples emotional side with lies about hunting ?. From the reply above one can see how mistruths if packaged right can replace truth.
            The truth and facts are out there about Cecil the lion .
            He was not lured out a park , the hunters had licenses, the hunters could not see the collar and the lion was not world renown he was not even known by the conservation officials . Those are the facts however, yes he should not have been shot as he was a lion from a photographic zone , yes the process of the license was a loophole in the act, yes the collar was not surrendered immediately to the authorities, but legal investigations were undertaken and this is a projected species so any prosecution would result in lengthy imprisonment and make for a major victory for anti hunters . The fact is nobody was prosecuted as no legal wrong doing was found.
            so when someone ss above asks why was the meat from the dead elephant not distributed to villages and that the bad hunters left the carcass to rot and lure lions out the park , clearly horrifically misinformed to the detriment of nature conservation.. The elephant died of natural causes and therefore is property of the government, anybody removing it would be guilty of an offence. Such is the depth of deception by the anti sustainable evangelist’s.

          • Peter Egan

            This just gets better and better, so the extinction of the Tasmanian Tiger, the DODO, the Passenger Pigeon, the Great Auk, the Quagga, the Falkland Island Wolf, the Zanzibar Leopard, the Carolina Parakeet, the Atlas Bear, the Toolache Wallaby, the Caribbean Monk Seal, the Sea Mink, the Bubal Hartebeest and soon the Northern White Rhino are all down to misinformation perpetuated by the anti hunting supporters – bugger me if we had all known that then we would have shut up.

            What you pro hunting guys can’t seem to understand is that people choose to support wildlife organisations not because of hunting but because we want to see wildlife survive, DSWT doesn’t bang on about hunting but they have hundreds of thousands of supporters – why.
            Finally coming back to Cecil here is the transcript of Theo Bronkhorst the PH who was hired by Palmer to reporters outside of the magistrates court.

            “Bronkhorst told the Telegraph that the shoot went wrong right from the start after Palmer’s luggage went missing when he flew into Bulawayo.

            Because of the delay, Bronkhorst decided to divert from the hunting area he’d been aiming for and ended up on a farm called Antoinette, occupied by Honest Ndlovu. “We were never meant to hunt on the land where this lion was shot.”

            The hunting party “set off quite late, with the sun down, and found the carcass of an elephant which we dragged and moved into the long grass and used for bait,” said Bronkhurst. “We then established the ‘tree blind’ [a camouflaged hide made of tree branches and grass].”

            If that is not luring then tell me what is? And please don’t even start me on the subject of corruption and why Zimbabwe didn’t prosecute.

          • Graeme Pollock

            You are right your ludicrous comments get better and better , you now attribute the extinction of the Dodo , the passenger pigeon etc to trophy hunters. There is not a single peer reviewed scientific paper that attributes trophy hunting to he decline or extinction of a species. On the other hand the Bontebok , Black Wildebeest, Hartmans Zebra all recovered from being threatened from extinction on the back of hunters dollars. Hunters pay for conservation .

          • Graeme Pollock

            What is constant is how you adapt your story every time , you start with hunters killed an elephant and never gave meat to the locals and the lion was lured out the park as separate incidents. Now you manipulate the facts again to tell a story far removed from basic facts . Which are there was a dead elephant , hunters found it and dragged it to another place , unbeknown to them Cecil followed a lioness in estrus to the carcass and was shot . They never lured the lion out the park a lioness did. They could not give the meat to the local villages as it was not a hunted elephant , a far cry from your sensationalized version of what happened.

          • Peter Egan

            No I only repeated what Theo Bronkhorst, the PH guiding Walter Palmer, stated happened to the press on the steps of the Bulawayo magistrate’s court, if you are now saying Bronkhorst never said that they dragged an Ele carcass into the long grass to use as bait and then made a hide to shoot Cecil from and that the worlds press are all lying then you and he should bring a libel case against them.
            Also you were one who initially claimed Cecil followed a Lioness to feed on an Elephant carcass and was not lured, I only questioned how this could be if as you had previously claimed all Elephant meat from hunting areas is distributed to the villages to which you replied the Elephant carcass in this case belonged to the Govt so the landowner could not touch it.
            But hold on Theo stated they dragged the carcass to use as
            bait so clearly he wasn’t deterred by it being Govt property and isn’t it a fact that CAMPFIRE (which you are fond of quoting), grew out of the 1975 Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Act which granted private landholders the right to use the wildlife on their land for their own
            benefit, including through safari hunting and the capture and sale of animals. source The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services Peter G.H. Frost, Ivan Bond
            As you say why spoil a great story with the truth so I will leave it to the reader’s to judge who is adapting the story to suit an agenda.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Further to the above and how anti hunters bend the facts

            Scientists Finally Disclose Cecil Not Lured from Park

            WILDCRU,
            The Wildlife Conservation Research Unit based at Oxford University that collared and satellite tracked Cecil has just published an article
            revealing that Cecil was not lured out of the Hwange National Park by Dr. Palmer and/or his PH. It also discloses that Cecil was in a core area he occupied outside of the park when hunted. The lion’s home range was far outside of the park.

            To quote the article by David W.
            Macdonald, et al. Cecil: A Moment or a Movement? Analysis of Media Coverage of the Death of a Lion, Panthera Leo. Animals 2016, 6, 26; doc:10.3392, the lion had been collared and satellite tracked since 2009. Cecil was one of “65 lions that were hunted on the land surrounding the Protected Area, 45 of them were equipped with tracking devices.”

            “It was reported (incorrectly) to have been lured by bait out of the
            park…” The lion was hunted on bait out of the park. The lion was
            hunted on a bait, but not lured from the park as some media accounts have implied; the area was part of the lion’s normal range. The ranch where the hunt took place was within the “home range” of the lion during the prior months (April, May, June) until arrowed July 1st at approximately 22:00. The hunt finished “approximately 250 cm from where he was initially wounded.” That was 9 am the next morning.

            Analysis:
            The lion’s “home range” from April until hunted on July 1 was as much outside of the park as in the park. He was not “lured out of the park by dragging bait from the park…” That was wholly fabricated in the early reports and continues to be misrepresented today. That inflammatory fabrication was heightened by other false reports that are not noted in the article. One media source was threatened with government sanctions for misrepresentations. Another story about the killing of Jericho, “Cecil’s Brother” by another hunter within the park was also wholly concocted. Jericho was not the brother of Cecil. Jericho was not killed at all, and therefore not “killed by a hunter in the park.”

            The false report that one of Cecil’s cubs had been killed was also
            alarming. The cub was not likely to have been Cecil’s and still survives today.

            There was the suggestion by all that the killing of a
            collared lion was in itself illegal. Not so; most lion taken for over a
            decade in the area were collared, 45 of the 65. One of the purposes of the collaring research was to determine the causes of the morality of the pride lion.

            Editorial and social media both carried the message that lion were in danger of extinction. Not true by any stretch of the imagination. The lion quota was extremely low, cautionary, and
            scientifically based. The local communities and hunting operators had been incentivized by the safari hunting revenue to shepherd the lion as potential trophies instead of livestock-eating vermin. Yours truly had made an in-person appeal to the conservancy land owners adjoining the park to take down the livestock fences, eliminate the cattle, and let the lions grow to be more valuable trophies. But for that approach Cecil may have never been born, and surely would not have lived to a scruffy old 13 years of age. Following the suggested changes, the lion population in the park increased from 300-400 to 800 with a growing “resident population” outside of the park boundaries at the time Cecil was taken.

            There should no longer be any doubt that fabrications, apparent illegality, and ignorance made “a perfect storm” that otherwise would not have been a rational reaction. Let’s hope that lion conservation and the good people that must tolerate lion don’t bear the costs of the fabricated storytelling.

          • Bundubele

            I have to say, these are interesting sentiments and ceratinly the ‘anti-hunting’ lobby need to think carefully.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Not so much think carefully but STOP TELLING LIES , we are the first to jump on hunters acting badly , the first to request hunting stop where species are not being managed sustainably . Eg in Botswana it was the hunting assoc that advised the DWNP that the quota on hyena was not sustainable and asked to have it reduced , they were the ones to point out the grouse breeding season was in the hunting season and must be changed to another time. Kenya’s wildlife declined on the misinformed decision to ban hunting , Ethiopia the same , wildlife has declined in the old hunting areas in Botswana , the cause and affect is clear

          • Peter Egan

            Graeme, where did I say I attributed the extinction of the
            DoDo et al to trophy hunters? That’s just your paranoia showing. Yes trophy hunters have a lot to answer for but they are only the wealthy apex, the majority of hunters are made up by those who aspire to trophy hunting but don’t have the financial wherewithal so content themselves instead with hunting whatever they can get their hands on just for the thrill of the kill, that’s why these species died out.
            It is well documented that all of those species I mentioned
            were hunted to extinction. In the passenger pigeons case, it is reported the final flock of 250,000 were killed by a group of hunters who actually knew that it was the last flock of that size in existence. Not a single bird was left behind. Tell me again how hunters actually conserve wildlife.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Here is a quick basic read on the concept of sustainable use and the ludicrous suggestion hunting leads to extinction or loss of wildlife .

            https://firstforwildlife.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/the-science-behind-sustainable-use/.

          • Schroederville

            “First For Wildlife”?This read was written by SCI. That is Safari Club International, the same club of thrill killers who promote killing as many animals as you can with prizes for the biggest and the best, called things like “Grand Slam”…. a sickening club. NO sceince merit here, Graeme. SCI is a wealthy group of thugs, entitled and evil to the core.
            http://www.alternet.org/environment/bigger-story-behind-killing-cecil-lion-media-overlooked

          • Graeme Pollock

            Again there was a transferred license for the lion hunt it was a legal hunt , hence no successful prosecution on this point .
            The deliberate use of the terminology ” when they beheaded and skinned him “; is a perverse way to manipulate a century old way of skinning a animal , something that happens hundreds of thousands of times a day in abattoir’s around the world , with not a murmur . If the animal was ” beheaded” as you state , the trophy would be ruined , so another deliberate mis-truth. Make no mistake the death of Cecil was a much needed call for issues to be corrected in Zimbabwe, something the hunting association had been working for some time on with the Authorities but what it did not need was the lies , sensationalism , and perverse manipulation of the facts .

  • Annatjie Kruger

    Brilliantly stated and something I will use in future when arguing against trophy hunting.

    • James Kydd

      Ok, here’s your first chance to debate it.

      Conservation is not a morality play, but don’t try telling that to Kendall Jones. A 19-year-old student and cheerleader at Texas Tech, Jones has been hunting big game in Africa with her father since she was nine. This past July, she posted photos on Facebook of herself with her kills — leopard, lion, hippo, zebra, elephant, rhino. The response was overwhelming: 325,000 people signed a petition asking Facebook to remove the images, which it did, saying the act violated its rule about “graphic images shared for sadistic effect or to celebrate or glorify violence.” The “Kill Kendall Jones” page remained for three days before Facebook removed it, too.

      Jones was hardly the only hunter to find herself on the wrong side of public anger over their trophies. Axelle Despiegelaere, a Belgian World Cup fan, had her brief modeling career cut short when she posted a picture of herself with an oryx she had shot. Corey Knowlton, a Texas hunter who paid $350,000 at a Dallas Safari Club auction for a permit to kill a black rhino in Namibia, received death threats against his children.

      Kendall Jones and many others, including conservationists and scientists with long experience in Africa, argue that trophy hunting helps fund conservation efforts and does no ecological harm. There are good reasons to be wary about such claims. The pictures of smiling hunters with their trophies, and the very idea of rich Texans paying handsomely to kill rare animals for sport are proof enough for many people that safari hunting is at best an anachronism and at worst an abhorrence that must be stopped. Conservation is about saving animals. Hunting is about killing them.

      Hunting raises legitimate moral questions, but its potential role in conservation cannot be assessed solely in moral terms. For one thing, the people in Africa who stand to benefit (or not) from safari hunting have utterly different and often irreconcilable attitudes toward hunting than their Western opponents. The challenge for conservationists is to formulate a baseline for judging if and when hunting can contribute to conservation. Who controls the land and resources that support game animals? Who benefits from those resources, and can they be distributed in ways that that help conservation efforts?

      Science plays an crucial role in answering these questions, but the debate goes far beyond science to issues of human rights, political ecology, criminology, public health, and economics. The most successful efforts to bring safari hunting and conservation together are not based on either moral or scientific judgements alone, but rather on the principal of self-determination, communities choosing how to use land to which they claim some degree of ownership.

      Neither trophy hunting nor community-based natural resource management can be tied directly to many dramatic conservation successes. Neither remotely resemble panaceas for Africa’s myriad ills. Yet both remain part of the debate because, when done right, they stem from the same powerful dynamic: the shift of power from the center to the periphery, from national governments still burdened by corruption or postcolonial bureaucracies, or both, to the rural communities at the frontline of conservation. If people who share their land with Africa’s wild animals can benefit directly from conserving them, the results can be impressive, and trophy hunting has been at the center of some of CBNRM’s most notable successes.

      The experience in Namibia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, while far from uniform, demonstrates both how trophy hunting can contribute to conservation but also the many conditions that must be met and how fragile the balance among conflicting goals and ideals can be. While a movement from the center to the periphery is critical, for example, central government still plays an important role and the reality is that for CBNRM approaches to work it must fulfill criteria at a variety of scales, from rural communities all the way to central government and at times internationally.

      II.

      Wealthy hunters will pay huge sums to hunt Africa’s most famous game species, the so-called big five — elephants, rhinos, buffalo, lions, and leopards. Many populations of these animals live in areas of desperate human poverty. But the juxtaposition of poor people and a potentially valuable wild resource does not mean that the exploitation of one will necessarily lead to the betterment of the other. With appropriate scientific guidance, shooting a small number of animals will not do lasting ecological damage. But that is not enough. What are the institutional arrangements that would make trophy hunting viable as a conservation strategy?

      Namibia offers one illustration. In 1996, Namibia enacted landmark legislation that gave tribal communities — who previously had limited rights to resources on communal lands — the ability manage and directly benefit from their wildlife. The rationale was straightforward: poverty and the lack of human development in the country meant that a conservation approach based on protected areas, law enforcement, and non-utilization principles would not work, or would be too expensive to sustain in the long-term.

      Conservancies in Namibia quickly began striking deals with tourism companies. Many conservancies allow trophy hunting because it is far easier to get a hunting concession running than to build the lodges and other infrastructure needed for photo safaris. The fees paid by the operators go directly to the communities. The early returns prompted other communities to create conservancies, and there are now 79 conservancies that cover nearly 58,000 square miles, about the size of Georgia. Total land under some form of conservation management has increased to more than 42 percent of the country’s land area, three times that of the United States and one of the highest percentages in the world. Thirty-two of the communal conservancies are adjacent to or in key corridors between national parks, thus strengthening Namibia’s protected area network.

      In 2012, the conservancies generated over $4 million in cash income and an additional $1 million in in-kind benefits (such as the distribution of harvested game meat). This amounts to more than $300 per person, a substantial amount in a country where over 60 percent of the population, most in the rural areas where conservancies operate, live on less than $1 per day.

      One element in the success of conservancies in Namibia is that fact that in much of the country the opportunity costs of conservation are low, as the arid lands do not support much beyond subsistence agriculture. Wildlife is far better adapted to the conditions and may represent the highest economic return. But even in the northeastern part of the country, which is much like the rest of east and southern Africa with its treed savannas and decent rain, conservancies have taken hold. The approach has even spread beyond communal areas, as some private landowners in so-called commercial conservancies are taking down fences to make larger landscapes and switching from cattle to wildlife.

      Even though trophy hunting is a key revenue source for many conservancies, wildlife population trends have proven to be stable or increasing across regions where conservancies are operating. Until quite recently the trend even held for black rhino, which increased in Namibia while in decline almost everywhere else on the continent. The recent spike in demand for rhino horn, however, has driven the price so high that not even the financial incentives provided by the conservancies are enough to protect them, and poaching has been on the increase, especially in the northeast.

      Despite the worrisome uptick in poaching, it is clear that people in rural Namibia see the value in sharing their land with wildlife, even the occasional crop-raiding elephant, because they make the decisions. They can sell a hunting permit for that elephant for $10,000, set the quotas and choose who to sell them to, and eat the meat. The conservancies thus address a key threat to wildlife: a political ecology in which benefits from wildlife accrue to people who bear none of the costs. While CBNRM is far from a universal success, where it has made a difference for both people and wildlife is has done so by redressing this imbalance.

      There are still other conditions that must be met before trophy hunting can reliably contribute to conservation: good governance with transparency in laws, regulations, and enforcement; citizens with respect for those laws; an army of biological scientists and enforcement officers; and a public demand for conservation. Where trophy hunting fails to contribute to conservation the proprietary rights of landholders are weak and benefits are captured by other stakeholders through bureaucracy, excessive fees, and corruption.

      While the idea of devolving authority over wildlife — including the right to allow trophy hunting — to landowners, including communal landowners, has spread in Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia, a very different approach is firmly in place elsewhere in Africa, most notably in Kenya. Kenya banned all consumptive use of wild species in 1977: no sport hunting, cropping, ranching, live capture and sale, taxidermy, trophies, or souvenirs. The country used the hunting ban to build its brand as the destination for wildlife tourism in Africa, and it developed a thriving industry that brings in millions of dollars each year.

      Such a tourist industry requires a vast and expensive infrastructure, including airports, roads, and hotels. It also requires political stability, a pleasant climate, and large numbers of readily findable animals. Few places on Earth, let alone Africa, have that combination. Kenya’s high savannas are perfect; Tanzania’s miombo woodland, Zimbabwe’s thornscrub, and Namibia’s desert are not. Hunters will put up with the tougher conditions of those habitats so long as the game are present, but it is nearly impossible to create a luxury photo tourism industry there.

      Since hunting was banned in Kenya wildlife populations have dropped by 80 percent. There are far too many confounding factors to attribute direct cause and effect of either banning or promoting trophy hunting to the fate of wildlife populations in Kenya and any country in southern Africa, but the dynamic is at least sufficient to give one pause when making the claim that hunting is per se bad for Africa’s wildlife. Yet that is precisely the claim that is often made.

      Blame for the drop in wildlife in Kenya and across Africa cannot at this point by lain at the doorstep of trophy hunters. The leading causes are habitat loss caused by expanding human settlement, agriculture, and other kinds of land use incompatible with wildlife, followed by uncontrolled hunting, usually for bushmeat. In short, uncompetitive returns from wildlife compared with those from livestock or agriculture create incentives for landowners to convert any rangeland with agricultural potential to cultivation.

      As habitat disappears, the risk of conflict between people and large and dangerous animals increases. Such conflicts are rarely resolved in favor of wildlife, unless people have exceptionally strong incentives to do so. The challenge of creating such incentives are so significant that some conservationists believe it may be time to abandon the ideal of coexistence and instead admit that the only solution is to separate people and wildlife altogether, with fences.

      Fences are as hot-button an issue as hunting. They symbolize the loss of wilderness, not its salvation. Private, fenced ranches in South Africa have done well in restoring some game populations and converting farmland back to something more closely resembling its wild state, though the extent to which that is the case is subject to debate. The idea of putting up fences on the East Africa savannas will generate intense opposition, but Craig Packer, a leading researcher on lions and long-time resident of Tanzania, makes just such an argument. Fenced reserves are cheaper and more effective at conserving lions; nearly half the unfenced lion populations may decline to near extinction in the next 20 to 40 years, Packer argues.

      Packer is neither a reflexive supporter nor opponent of hunting. For one thing, he points out that the $10,000 fee to hunt a lion in Tanzania is far too low and, in any event, little of that money gets back to the local community. After analyzing data on harvest trends across Tanzania’s hunting blocks Packer and colleagues found that the intensity of trophy hunting was the factor most responsible for lion declines. Yet even so Packer does not rule out the possibility that hunting may be beneficial in some circumstance and his recommendation was not to ban hunting but to lower the quotas.

      The fact is that any species can be hunted sustainably, outside of the extreme case of removing the last reproductively viable male or female, if the science and enforcement are good enough. But there is ecological sustainability and there is economic sustainability, and they don’t necessarily overlap. With rare species, the level of ecologically sustainable hunting would be too low by themselves to keep an outfitter in business and contributing to local economies, The exception may be those few species that command extraordinary fees. So the $350,000 paid for the rhino in Namibia, while it stoked massive outrage, could be appropriate if most of that money made it back to the communities in whose hands the future rhinos and their habitat ultimately lies.

      Few places other than a handful of locations in Africa have animals that are as desirable for hunters. It may be the case that trophy hunting is only viable where there are healthy populations of elephants and rhinos, or perhaps with particularly rare and valuable sheep like markhor, a species of mountain goat native to the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Permits for markhor can go for $150,000 each and there are efforts to set up conservancies akin to those in Namibia to direct most of that money to local communities.

      III.

      The debate we should be having is not whether trophy hunting is moral or immoral, but whether it can be justified on scientific and conservation grounds, who ultimately benefits from it, and what kind of conservation it can support. But that is not how the debate plays out in the Western media, and, in some cases, within African governments themselves. Organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and others have sophisticated lobbying and fundraising efforts and they now wield enormous influence. Unfortunately, that influence often rests on painting Africa, Africans, and hunters with such a broad brush that it obscures rather than clarifies the fundamental questions.

      In 2006, the Kenyan government announced a major review of conservation policy. The Humane Society, IFAW, and others feared this was the first step toward reintroducing trophy hunting and mobilized to stop it. Animal welfare groups paid activists to disrupt public meeting on the new policy, orchestrated an anti-sport hunting media campaign on television, radio and in the press, with anti-hunting posters in the streets and at Nairobi’s international airport, prevented mainstream conservation organizations from presenting their views, and funded the creation of local, anti-hunting NGOs. A proposal to allow more use of wildlife, even though it delayed reconsideration of the hunting ban itself, was withdrawn.

      Botswana for many years allowed trophy hunting and had had among the healthiest game populations on the continent. In 2014, however, Botswana banned all hunting on public land. Among the most prominent voices advocating for the ban were filmmakers Dereck and Beverly Joubert, who have close ties to both the President of Botswana, Ian Khama, and animal welfare organizations, including IFAW.

      Hunters are losing or have already lost their social license to operate in many places. If hunting is to make a meaningful contribution to conservation they need to get it back. This is not a question of mustering scientific evidence about sustainability; it is as much, or more, about perception and emotion, and hunters have been strangely slow to understand the terms of fight they are now in. The way in which hunters respond to the deeply felt belief among a growing number of people that killing wild creatures for sport is always and in every circumstance wrong may determine whether is has a future, regardless of scientific evidence regarding sustainability. Hunters need to accept this as a legitimate concern; the failure to do so is what leads to the in-your-face trophy shots. Hunters need to demonstrate high ethical standards, clear connections to broader conservation, and local empowerment. Even then, hunters and conservationist need to recognize that what works in one place will not necessarily work in another.

      Given the long history of hunting on Africa, and the place it holds in the Western imagination, it is easy to forget that the current model of commercial recreational hunting in southern Africa is just 30 years old. It continues to evolve to fit changing circumstances. It would be foolish in the extreme to decide now that it has no place in future conservation, just as it would be foolish to assume that hunting by itself will be integral to both conservation and development.

      • Annatjie Kruger

        I am going to try and answer some of what you mention in your comment. For the rest I must refer you back to Decker’s letter.

        The only moral question hunting raise for me is: “So you enjoy killing for the sake of killing or do you kill to feed your family. Most of the hunters you name in the first part of your comment seems to hunt (and killing) for enjoyment. I do not know of any person who will feed on the meat of a lion or a leopard. I have yet to hear of any body eating elephant or rhino meat. So the only meat that will be used is that of the Zebra and the Hippo. The carcasses of the kills of these hunters was left where they die, minus of course the parts (head, feet, ivory, etc) the hunter wants (and could) take home with him/her. Hunting today is not a necessity but a sport only practice by rich bored people. Is hunting a moral and emotional issue for me? Yes it is. I see no reason why a healthy animal in the prime of his life should be killed so that part of him can hang in the house of some rich spoiled bored person. And that is exactly what happens. Nobody is going to pay hundreds of thousands of rands to kill an old lion, elephant, rhino, hippo, etc. One that is at the end of its life and cannot contribute to the gene pool anymore. O, NO, the big trophy hunter is going to want a healthy young lion in his prime.

        What science are we talking about? The “science” of mathematics (money) or the science of DNA (gene pool)? If it is the first one then yes the hunter wins hands down. If the is however the science of DNA then the animal will win. Any species (except for man) needs a good, healthy gene pool to continue to exist. That means healthy strong parents to produce healthy strong off spring. However if one of the healthy strong parents is removed from the breeding pool then the off spring is weaker and sickly. Just ask a farmer if you do not believe me. What goes for a healthy strong farm animal, goes for an animal in the wild. Actually more so!! Because on a farm the farmer use all kinds of pest control to keep his animals healthy, but in the wild the animals needs to relay solely on their strength and healthy to overcome a myriad of problems.0

        Blame for the drop in wildlife in across Africa (and even in America) can LARGELY be contributed to hunters (trophy or otherwise). Especially white hunters. They arrive with their rifles and lust for killing and killed thousands of animals. I understand that in America the bison was killed by their thousands daily. The hunters sat down on chairs and just shoot until they were tried, the sun went down. Before the great big white hunter arrive the only hunters in Africa and America were the original people. And they only hunt for food. They will kill only enough to last them a few days. And mostly it was it weaker slower animals that was killed. Lions, leopards, bears, etc was only killed if they were a danger to the tribe. Lions will only hunt domestic animals if there is not any (or enough) wild animals available or if the lion is old and not able to hunt wild animals.

        Such a tourist industry requires a vast and expensive infrastructure, including airports, roads, and hotels. The hunters also need expensive infrastructure to come and go and to “export” their trophies. The only different here is that they use the existing infrastructure, put there by the tourist industry. Repeated use of the infrastructure ensure the upkeep of that structure. The structures however becomes useless if all the wild animals are killed, but if they are only observed and photographed then there is structure (and jobs) for tomorrow and far into the future.

        Neither trophy hunting nor community-based natural resource management can be tied directly to many dramatic conservation successes. Neither remotely resemble panaceas for Africa’s myriad ills. There are success stories in Africa by educating the people that they, their animals and the wild animals of Africa can co-exist. I am thinking here of the African warrior tribe (the name escapes me at the moment), tall very independent people. Through education they now understand that it is not necessary to kill the wild animals (lions included), but by sustainable farming they can make money from their farms and from the wild animals.

        Hunting and especially trophy hunting is bad for Africa’s wildlife. The trophy hunter insist in the best trophy possible for his money. That means that the young healthy able bodied breeding males an females are killed and the old past breeding one are left behind. For me there is no surer way for extinction than killing the young and leaving the old. Cecil the lion killed in Zimbabwe is a glaring example of this. He was in his prime with quite a few off spring in his tribe. He was killed and the possibility of his off spring been killed by the next male to take over is apparently 99.99999%. O and by the way I for one do not believe for a moment that that dentist did not know that he was killing a game reserve lion. He would have told the “professional hunter” that he wants the best specimen available. and that so called hunter would have know about Cecil.

        Fences are as hot-button an issue as hunting. They symbolize the loss of wilderness, not its salvation. Africa is big enough its people and its animals. If the fenced off areas are big enough for the animals to freely roam and it protect the people then why not. The elephants in the Addo Elephant Park is a good example of people and animals safely co-existing.

        Fenced reserves are cheaper and more effective at conserving lions; nearly half the unfenced lion populations may decline to near extinction in the next 20 to 40 years, Packer argues. Unfortunately because of over hunting and poaching it seems as if the only way to save the wild animals of Africa is to fence them in. It makes it easier to protect them.

        The fact is that any species can be hunted sustainably, outside of the extreme case of removing the last reproductively viable male or female, if the science and enforcement are good enough. The only “sustainable hunting” is canned hunting. When a hunter goes into the open veld and kill a lion he is not going to know if that lion (if it is a female) have cubs somewhere that DESPERATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! needs her to grow to adulthood. He will only know that he killed a suckling lioness if he is an experienced hunter and not Trump, Bush, Obama or any other rich spoiled bored overseas hunter is going to know that. And anyway if she is dead, it is to late. By killing her you also killed her cubs. If they are very small and cannot yet hunt they will stave, until a heyna or other beast of prey happens upon them.

        The debate we should be having is not whether trophy hunting is moral or immoral, but whether it can be justified on scientific and conservation grounds, who ultimately benefits from it, and what kind of conservation it can support. There should not even be a debate, because trophy hunting is immoral, period. Take the canned lion hunting for instance. The cubs is first used for photographs and playing with humans. This makes them use to humans. Then they are put into small enclosures, and used for hunting. They will not run away for they are use the humans. The humans also feed them. So every time they see a human they will think “lunch time”. Even more horrifying is the fact that some of the so called hunter guides will use the cubs of a suckling lioness to lure her close enough for the hunter to shoot. How moral do you think that is? Me? I think it is disgusting. Actually I do not have enough word to express my disgust about the man who “own” that lioness or the person who shoot her.

        Botswana for many years allowed trophy hunting and had had among the healthiest game populations on the continent. But Botswana also have quite a few game lodges where that animals are allow to roam and breed free of human interference. So it is possible that the game lodges and not the hunters are responsible for the healthy game population.

        Hunters are losing or have already lost their social license to operate in many places. If hunting is to make a meaningful contribution to conservation they need to get it back. GOOD. Very Very Good. I hope the rest of them also loose their license to operate. How can killing be a meaningful contribution to conversation? How do you conserve what you kill? If the animal is dead, it is dead. It will not be able to reproduce. There will be no more lions if the last lion is killed for a trophy for a Trump-a-like to hang in his house to prove to his male friends that he is big and strong. If the last rhino was poached there will be no more to poach or kill for trophies. They will be dead. And I think that this is what most conservationist wants people to realize. By killing the young strong and healthy you are killing the species.

        Given the long history of hunting on Africa, and the place it holds in the Western imagination, it is easy to forget that the current model of commercial recreational hunting in southern Africa is just 30 years old. Please not my comments about hunters from days gone by. And I do not agree with you that commercial recreational hunting is new (30 yrs). Rather I would say that it was brought to the forfront through the social media and because people are now becoming more aware of the world around them. The killing never really stopped, it just went underground for a while. There will always be people who will want to show off their abilities with gun or bow and arrow. The problem whoever is that it is illegal to kill people so they will take their killing where they are allow to do it and not mind paying for the “privilege”. There will always be a Trump, or Bush or Zuma or Obama who will want to brag to his friends about to big bad lion he killed in darkest Africa. Never mind that it was a half tame lioness trying to protect her cubs on a canned lion hunting farm close to Pretoria or Johannesburg.

        O and don’t let me start on the Chinese, Taiwanese or whoever are buying the rhino horn and the poachers.

        • James Kydd

          You haven’t provided any statistical data, only ad hominem attacks. Where is any quantifiable proof that hunting hurts conservation? Have you even heard of a quota system and can you define it? It flies in the face of your theory that “they arrive with their rifles and lust for killing and killed thousands of animals.” Sorry, but that doesn’t happen. Botswana outlawed hunting and now poachers have taken over areas that were once monitored by those who hunted sustainably. Again, where is your data? I can provide some that aren’t my opinion.

          In the March 2015 issue of The Journal of Wildlife Management, researchers from Clemson University and Cornell University found that “wildlife recreationists — both hunters and birdwatchers — were 4 to 5 times more likely than non-recreationists to engage in conservation behaviors, which included a suite of activities such as donating to support local conservation efforts, enhancing wildlife habitat on public lands, advocating for wildlife recreation, and participating in local environmental groups.”

          No one thinks that putting a suffering dog to sleep is inhumane. The same logic applies to hunting. Mother Nature does not provide for a comfortable death in the wild.

          In an ideal world, all hunters should only consider animals that are in the last stages of their lives — though some hunters don’t seem to understand why this is important. Usually, these animals are in for a painfully slow natural death that includes losing their teeth and starving, or a painfully quick natural death by being eaten alive by other predators, even in a reserve.

          This may sound harsh, but sometimes ending an animal’s misery is the most humane thing to do. That’s why it happens in American veterinarian offices every day.

          Economic benefit for locals

          A conservation hunt brings in money for the wildlife cause and local communities. Before the rhino conservation hunt, the animals provided no monetary value to the local economy. With the hunts comes some economic benefit.

          In a 2007 study, Peter Lindsey, a conservation biologist with the University of Zimbabwe in Harare, found that “in the 23 African countries that allow sport hunting, 18,500 tourists pay over $200 million (U.S.) a year to hunt lions, leopards, elephants, warthogs, water buffalo, impala, and rhinos.” After the hunt, the meat — from older, non-reproducing males — is usually donated to the locals.

          The world’s human population is growing exponentially. That isn’t good news for the world’s wildlife population. Any solution must include conservation and resource management.

          Conservation through commerce should not be viewed in a negative light. I encourage all hunters to only participate in legal and properly-run hunts and to raise awareness about protecting endangered animals so that they don’t go extinct.

          You say that hunters are losing or have already lost their social license to operate in many places. That is far from the truth. Look at Namibia, Zambia, South Africa, Zimbabwe. All places with legalized hunting and better wildlife numbers than in Kenya, where it was made illegal. And don’t believe that Botswana banned hunting outright either. There are still places where the government has sanctioned it.

          Finally, you should probably watch this:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjUrzB2xxIA

        • Mambera

          Debate with facts, not emotion. You didn’t give him any facts, only opinions.

        • Mambera

          Anntjie, if you spent more time researching the facts you would see that your theories are not correct.

          Can trophy hunting ever be a useful tool in the conservationist’s toolbox? On the surface, the answer would appear obvious. It seems as if the killing of an animal – especially an endangered one – for sport is directly contradictory to the goal of ensuring the survival of a species. The question has been asked again following the auction last Saturday night of the right to hunt an endangered black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in Namibia. And the answer, as usual, is more complicated.

          The permit was sold for $350,000, well above the previous high bid for a permit in that country, $223,000. While the Dallas Safari Club had the dubious distinction of being the first organization to hold such an auction outside of Namibia itself, it’s fairly unremarkable and actually quite common for an African nation to sell permits for trophy hunting, even for endangered species. Indeed, both Namibia and South Africa are legally permitted by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to sell five permits for the hunting of adult male black rhinos each year.

          And it’s not just rhinos. For example, a 2000 report from TRAFFIC, an organization that works with the WWF, IUCN, and CITES to track the international trade of wildlife, describes how Namibia alone was the site of almost 16,000 trophy hunts that year. Those 16,000 animals represent a wide variety of species – birds, reptiles, mammals, and even primates – both endangered and not. They include four of the so-called “big five” popular African game: lion, Cape buffalo, leopard, and rhinoceros. (Only the elephant was missing.) The hunters brought eleven million US dollars with them to spend in the Namibian economy. And that doesn’t include revenue from non-trophy recreational hunting activities, which are limited to four species classified as of “least concern” by the IUCN: Greater Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok and Warthog.

          The issues here are complex and highly politicized. There are several questions that science can’t help address, primary of which is whether or not the money raised from the sale of hunting permits is used for conservation, something often promised by hunting tour operators. But empirical research can help to elucidate several other questions, such as whether hunting can ever help drive conservation efforts.

          In 2006, researcher Peter A. Lindsey of Kenya’s Mpala Research Centre and colleagues interviewed 150 people who either had already hunted in Africa, or who planned to do so within the following three years. Their findings were published in the journal Animal Conservation. A majority of hunters – eighty-six percent! – told the researchers they preferred hunting in an area where they knew that a portion of the proceeds went back into local communities. Nearly half of the hunters they interviewed also indicated that they’d be willing to pay an equivalent price for a poorer trophy if it was a problem animal that would have had to be killed anyway.

          Lindsey’s team also discovered that hunters were more sensitive to conservation concerns than was perhaps expected. For example, they were less willing to hunt in areas where wild dogs or cheetahs are illegally shot, in countries that intentionally surpass their quotas, or with operators who practice “put-and-take hunting,” which is where trophy animals are released onto a fenced-in property just before a hunt. Together this suggests that hunters were willing to place economic pressure on countries and tour companies to operate in as ethical a manner as possible. Approximately nine out of every ten hunters said they’d be willing to hunt in places that were poor for wildlife viewing or which lacked attractive scenery. That is, they said that they were willing to hunt in areas that would not have otherwise been able to reap an economic benefit from ecotourism.

          It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.

          Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in theJournal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.

          In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors.

          Still, the elephants of Zimbabwe and the white rhinos of South Africa seem to suggest that it is possible for conservation and trophy hunting to coexist, at least in principle. It is indeed a tricky, but not impossible, balance to strike.

          It is noteworthy that the Leader-Williams’ 2005 paper recommended that legal trophy hunting for black rhinos be focused mainly on older, non-breeding males, or on younger males who have already contributed sufficient genetic material to their breeding groups. They further suggested that revenues from the sale of permits be reinvested into conservation efforts, and that revenues could be maximized by selling permits through international auctions. Namibia’s own hunting policy, it turns out, is remarkably consistent with scientific recommendations.

          Even so, some have expressed concern regarding what the larger message of sanctioned trophy hunts might be. Could the possible negative consequences from a PR perspective outweigh the possible benefits from hunting? Can the message that an auction for the hunting of an endangered species like the black rhino brings possibly be reconciled with the competing message that the species requires saving? This question is probably not one that science can adequately address.

          However, it might just be worth having a quick look at some numbers. 745 rhinos were killed due to illegal poaching in 2012 in Africa, which amounts to approximately two rhinos each day, mostly for their horns. In South Africa alone, 461 rhinos were killed in just the first half of 2013. Rhino horns are valued for their medicinal uses and for their supposed cancer-curing powers. Of course, rhino horns have no pharmacological value at all, making their harvest even more tragic. The five non-breeding rhinos that Namibia allows to be hunted each year seem paltry in comparison, especially since they are older males who can no longer contribute to population growth.

          I don’t understand the desire to kill a magnificent animal for sport, even if the individual is an older non-breeding male. The sale of the right to kill an animal for a trophy surely reflects the value that animal lives hold in at least some corners of our society: that killing an animal for fun isn’t wrong, as long as you can afford it. It is right to worry about the sort of message that sends.

          But if an endangered species as charismatic as the black rhinoceros is under such extreme threat frompoaching, then perhaps the message that the species needs saving has a larger problem to address than the relatively limited loss of animals to wealthy hunters. The real tragedy here is that the one rhino that will be killed as a result of Saturday’s auction has received a disproportionate amount of media attention compared to the hundreds of rhinos lost to poaching each year, which remain largely invisible. And while there remains at least a possibility that sanctioned trophy hunts can benefit the black rhino as they have for the white rhino, there is only one possible consequence of continued poaching. It’s one that conservationists and hunters alike will lament

        • Graeme Pollock

          please do your homework – firstly the older the lion the better the trophy – its the middle age lions that are the controversy 4-5 years old. Secondly the greatest increase in wildlife IS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE USA, on the back of hunters dollars , after those two points I realized it is no use debating with someone who does not take time to research the truth.

        • Graeme Pollock

          In Zimbabwe , Namibia , Botswana Tanzania , Mozambique and Zambia to mention a few – people eat elephant – in facts thousands of pounds of elephant meat are distributed to rural communities as a source of protein . In all these countries most of the lion and leopard trophies are eaten as well , in the USA many hunters and local people eat Mountain lion trophies harvested . Please research something before making comments that are not true.

          • Peter Egan

            I’ve never heard so much rubbish in all my life, I have lived in all of the countries you mentioned except for Zim, most of the time in the bush and rural communities, I know of no incidence of Elephant meat being distributed as food, (or Lion or Leopard) in fact in may of the villages in these countries (and the towns for that matter) the people have never even seen an Elephant, lion or Leopard never mind ate one!

          • Graeme Pollock

            You Sir are an out and out liar , visit any CBNRM website and they will show you pictures and statistics on meat distributed to villages , at least do some homework before coming here and lying , at best you watch TV from your urban armchair , any reasonable person will see your feeble attempt to mislead people with lies about living in africa but unfortunately there will be some who think if you lived in Africa you would speak with some knowledge unaware of your hidden agenda to lie and spread mis truths . The funniest is where you state people living in Africa may never have even seen an elephant never mind ate one , in Botswana Zimbabwe Zambia and Tanzania to name a few people don’t only see them but get killed by them regularly , Google it as I ask any person mildly believing your hilarious claims .

          • Peter Egan

            I have tried twice to respond on this but it appears Africa Geographic will not publish my answer and have not responded to my question why but bear with me as I will keep trying.

          • Peter Egan

            And you Sir should not make wild allegations unless you know they are true. FYI I lived in Botswana from 1985-1989, travelled in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the DRC in the 90s and between 2005-2012 travelled each year in Southern and East Africa spending at least one month at a time in Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania & Kenya so I know these countries and the people well, unlike yourself who has probably never strayed out of Natal.

            What I’m saying is that from my experience most people in the areas away from the reserves and NPs have never seen or experienced Lion, Leopard or Elephant in their lives and in fact parks like Katavi & Tsavo now bus in local schoolkids just so they can see wildlife for the first time. I love it when you guys in RSA like to portray yourselves as old Africa hands when most of you never stray north of the Zambesi.

          • Peter Egan

            Oh by the way I checked a number of CBNRM (CAMFIRE, LIFE) websites and could find no reference to Lion, Leopard and Ele meat being distributed to villages by hunting concessions (I’m not talking about buck or antelope here) so please enlighten us by posting the URLs where this is specifically stated.

            Your right of course there have always been cases of Elephant/Human conflict but this is not as regular as you would like to portray. In the last 7 years some 200 people were killed by Elephants in Kenya in a country of some 48 million. In all my years travelling in Malawi a country of some 17 million I only ever heard of one case, although I see 7 people where killed in 2014 by Elephants supposedly migrating from Mozambique to Liwonde but then Malawi stated that this was the highest total in recent history.

            Finally your argument that wildlife increases on the back of hunting dollars, in South Africa there is very little wildlife outside of protected areas and that is mainly in fenced upmarket private reserves, the rest given over to hunting game farms. Namibia which tends to follow the South African model is a similar story (Kaokland being the exception). Only Botswana in Southern Africa can still claim to have true ‘wildlife’ in any numbers and its notable that country has now banned all sport/trophy hunting on govt land. I’ll leave it up to the readers to judge whose claims are the most hilarious!

          • Graeme Pollock

            I repeat I will not do your research and spoon feed you a symptom of this generation , you are either once again lying or are deliberately misleading people to the content of CAMPFIRE.
            Google African Wildlife Consultative Forum 2015 Campfire presentation .
            We were briefed directly by the chairman of the Zimbabwe Outfitters and operators associations who read out the affidavits from the parties , your statements are incorrect as above
            .
            But why spoil a great story with the truth (again).
            As to human wildlife conflict I have over 300 lodged reports in Botswana , just my company , and I am one of hundreds of farmers affected in Botswana alone , in the Niassa Mozambique we had a village Mavago , where they reported every week incidents of lions and elephant damage , yet you choose Malawi to quote wildlife conflict ???????!??. I forgot to mention for us to travel to our Mozambique safari concessions we travelled through Malawi and visited a bunch of places , but back to you trying to mislead people by referring to Malawi’s elephant, why not refer to hippo incidents that would be more applicable , you do know there are hippo in lake Malawi .
            You don’t refer to countries such as Tanzania , Namibia (Caprivi), Botswana, Zimbabawe where there are high densities of elephant and the infrastructure to report conflict , why not just Google IUCN livelihoods , you may get some proper feedback .

          • Schroederville

            Peter, your replies are informed, intelligent and patient, with this rich fat cat former consession owner who got rich off the heads and skins of Africa’s precious animals. He sold them out to foreign hunters and now he has the gaul to sit here and insult people like you and me. I applaud your patience and your grit. Please keep up the fight. We have a long way to go to protect lions and other African animals from these miscreants.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Peter I will not state the obvious because by now every reasonable person (not lunatic fringe) can untangle the truth , you STATE you love it when RSA people never stray beyond the Zambezi , again try just once not to spread lies and misinformation by speculation but get the real truth , I have been living in Botswana for the last 20 years where we owned a 650 000 acres concession in Northern Botswana , we owned a joint community concession in the Kgalagadi district employing 75 local community members in our safari operations , we own a 40 000acre cattle farm and 10 000 acre game ranch in Botswana we operated most of 2003-2009 in the Mozambique Niassa complex as the owners of the concession D2 ;we had joint operations in Tanzania in the Selous and took clients to western areas Uganda and Kilimbero, , we have operated in Namibia , captive strip and central area game ranches , my in laws live in Zambia and we visit them , have taken clients to Cameroon and were deep in negotiations for concessions in the DRC where I hold a heavy duty drivers license , we further were close to securing a concession in Uganda when the rebels occupied the concession and we had to withdraw. Prior to this I worked for 15 years for formal conservation in RSA (Natal Parks Board )
            I restate what I said before I can always debate with an anti hunter who is truthful and has the capacity to sort the sensational rubbish from the facts but you sir are not in that sector , you quote coffee table books , disneyfied made for TV programs and attempt to mislead people to believe you have some sort of knowledge of Africa , you are what our industry call “Urban armchair misinformed eco warriors”; I simply call you the enemy of wildlife conservation , you mislead the well meaning uninformed general public ..

          • Peter Egan

            Graeme, it seems I do you a disservice, I thought you were
            just an old hunter from Natal but it seems in amongst other things you are or were in fact the wealthy owner of at least two hunting concessions in Botswana & Mozambique. I was especially intrigued when you mentioned Northern Botswana so I did some research, as you keep telling me I should, and it seems you are the owner of Safaris Botswana Bound which operated hunting in area NG47 in Northern Botswana.
            I then realised NG47 is the area bordering the Nxai Pan NP
            and that brought back some happy memories as we first camped at Nxai in 1986 where we saw our first Leopard. You probably know in the 1980s Botswana was suffering a 10 year drought so at Nxai campsite they left a tap dripping to help the wildlife and it became well known that the Leopard would come to drink at the small pool of water.
            1986 was also the year when I first met Lionel Palmer who being
            a hunter you must know of, maybe even met if you lived in Maun before he passed, but for readers who have never heard of Lionel then you can read about him in the book ‘The Cry Of The Kalahari’ by Mark & Delia Owens.
            We first met Lionel when he pitched up with his client, a
            middle aged German woman and her toy boy lover, while we were staying in a camp in the Okavango Delta. We were told she was married to the Mercedes Benz franchise owner in Germany so was mega rich and she had just finished a hunting safari. She was at pains while looking through a book of African wildlife to brag to her friend about what she had shot in her lifetime and the list was
            long, including all the big five.
            To his credit Lionel tried his best to avoid her comments and
            chatted to Mike, the guide then at Mombo, and ourselves about Botswana and gave us newcomers some tips on where to go and camp in the future. Despite his reputation as a notorious hunter we liked Lionel a lot, as we have tended to like most of the PHs we have met over the years, there is no doubt they are very knowledgeable about the bush and where to go.
            I was interested to hear what it was like in Botswana when Lionel
            first arrived in the 1930s and said there must have been much more game around in those days but to my surprise he said there was much more game in the 1980s simply because there were far more controls around hunting. I asked why he didn’t then put his skills to guiding and conserving wildlife instead of hunting and he
            simply said ‘because there is nowhere near the same money in it’.
            Lionel was at least honest about where he stood and didn’t
            wrap up what he did as conservation although I have no doubt he controlled his clients and made sure they followed the rules, but he was old school.
            If you think then I get my information from coffee table books then you are sadly mistaken, as I say I now have 30 years of travelling
            in Africa and camping in remote places, carrying all our water and provisions but now I realise you have major interests in hunting concessions and suspect the jewel in your crown is your company in Botswana then I can well understand why you feel the need to come on this forum to argue the case for hunting especially as Botswana has now banned all hunting which clearly affects your bottom line.

          • Bundubele

            As a hunting advocate, you seem to aim sure, shoot straight and even touch the heart. But then perhaps life is a game? I ask you – as you are clearly a capable person – why do you not aim sure, shoot straight with your stylus – and find Truth instead? Ultimately a hunter is using the cardinal attributes of love, justice, wisdom and power to varying degrees because he is acting as a god by taking life away that he did not and could not have created himself. If you dare to act with the authority of a god, better to use your wisdom alongside the One who has given us imperfect humans meaningful laws to make life bearable for everyone.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Firstly I am a wildlife conservationist first and foremost who understands the role of hunting as a tool of conservation as is eco tourism as is game farming , what is not a tool of conservation is anti hunting , second to poaching anti hunting is wildlife greatest threat. You seem well read on t

          • Schroederville

            Graeme is really a nasty name caller.

          • Graeme Pollock

            When someone states he visited the Google web search for CAMPFIRE and could not find any reference to hunting revenues going back to communities or meat , yet every page I visited clearly explains and demonstrated the benefits . Then what do you call this person ? Honest , no ! liar springs to mind . But today I heard a great expression ( although in reference to market reactions to Brexit ) , sometimes sentiment is more important than facts , so I do understand good honest people who no matter the facts remain non hunters because its sentiment not facts that drives their opinion , but when someone deliberately misleads to impose their view on unsuspecting people , then they need to be exposed for what they are.

          • Schroederville

            Graeme really has a NEED to have the last word… hahaha! Must have power issues.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Predictable response , play the player and not the ball when all else fails , I preferred it when you where more vocal about conservation issues,. I have the last word in my house , its normally ” yes dear “.

          • Lourence du Preez

            Mr Graeme Pollock ( I sure hope you are not the Pollock of Cricket fame, if so, your shares have taken a big blow)

            Your statement about Mountain Lion being harvested for eating the meat is misleading. Hunters in the USA do not hunt Mountain Lion to eat the meat. The motive remains the same as always, the thrill of the hunt and the kill, and the subsequent trophy, etc. The fact that they may eat the meat is purely consequential as they may as well go and eat the meat since they own the kill. There is no justification for killing such a beautiful animal. In my ten years of living here in the USA I have yet to meet a hungry hunter in the USA who harvest Mountain Lion to feed himself or his/her family. Its almost funny when I think of your comments and then you take it one step further and start to talk about a source of “protein intake”. Kak man. Yes, you know what I mean.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Instead of taking my word about protein derived from distribution of elephant meat . Why not (for once ) seek the truth and google CAMPFIRE, Zimbabwe, it will show you how over 1 million children receive meals from hunting program’s in just one district in Zim . Then google protein deficiency in African communities. Then look up the meaning of the word Kak that you said and you will see the only person speaking it is you. Sadly all we see here is emotion driven by misinformation, if only the antis’ could take the time to do a bit of background reading before forming an opinion.

          • Lourence du Preez

            You miss my point and choose to see only what you want to see. I am talking about your comment on the USA and mountain lion hunters eating eat. I did not mention Africa once, you did. Stick to the point and answer that first. And in this case I see my emotion as a positive force for the good. If I had no emotion (like hunters for these beautiful animals) then I am a pitiful man with no soul.

          • Graeme Pollock

            You miss the point, I did not answer the point on Mtn lion because I never said hunters shoot them for meat what I did say is that many hunters do eat the lion afterwards as it is seen as a delicacy, this is not done in a large scale in Africa but some locals do for magic medicine ( muti) . Google eating mountain lion.
            or better still google Wade Lemon hunting and ask a professional. I anticipate you won’t as antis don’t like to blur the truth with facts or research and base on opinion on science or truth.

          • Lourence du Preez

            Graeme, look, I don’t mean to dismiss any points made by the pro-hunting folks I only want what is best for the future of our wildlife. I think you will probably agree you have the same goal. I believe there is common ground somewhere in the middle where both parties can meet amicably but it will take compromise. I have hope that it will move in that direction. If not, then it looks bleak out there for us – based on the tremendous statistical decimation of wildlife due to many factors, not just trophy hunting. There is huge growing concern for more drastic nature conservation driven by younger generations and soon their way of thinking will dominate old school thinking. Everyone can see the tremendous pressure it is putting on all pro-hunting organizations and it will only escalate over the coming years as generations turn. Lets top with the excuses to protect what we think is best. It causes major emotional discussions, to the point of hate, because people fear losing what they believe in, right or wrong. Anyhow, I wish you well and leave you with a more personal thought. I was born and bred as a South African with a great love for the bush and hunted every now and then with my father who has since passed on. I loved those trips. Over the years I have visited and grown to love the game parks across Southern Africa. There is nothing like the raw African nature and beauty and its smell in your nostrils. The past 10 years I have lived in America where with great shock and sadness I have observed the blatant advertising and ignorant actions of most (not all) hunters for wildlife. Southern African countries are prime targets for the killing of lion, leopard, even cheetah, etc. and there is very little regard for what eventually happens in Africa. It is mostly about trophies and Grand Slams. The local African authorities are ill-equipped to logically manage this industry and the mighty dollar dominates. Botswana may be the exception here. So my experience as both an African and an American is the authority by which I speak. I am not an armchair quarterback spectating from a distance and tossing stones at everyone on the “other side”. In the end we both lose if we continue our separate paths. I know not what your authority is but I hope you see it from both sides. This is always a good start.

          • Graeme Pollock

            There is an old American Indian saying :
            The left wing and right wing …..are both wings from the same bird
            I like you are first and foremost a conservationists ,after 35 years in the field both formal conservation and the private sector , I have had the chance to see most aspects of wildlife conservation and debated conservation issues across the continent and without doubt the people most committed to preserving the African wilderness and is biodiversity are the hunters , and due to the conserted effort of the anti hunters we are loosing millions of acres of wild life areas and biodiversity every year as the protection afforded by hunting companies is removed with the banningor closing of hunting , Kenya lost 85% of its wildlife after closing hunting , Namibia RSA and the USA have recovered their wildlife stocks on the back of hunting dollars , yet the anti hunting organizations raise millions of dollars with less than 15% finding its way into the field , the only ones benefitting from anti hunting programs are these organizations and individuals ,,you have to ask yourself if they spread the truth and did not pull at heart strings who would donate to them . ????? i

          • Schroederville

            No, the US has NOT recovered our wildlife “stocks”, as if they were nothing but a commodity, we have endangered wolves who are teetering on the brink, bobcats in some areas are just barely coming back after being hunted into oblivion, and I have been forefront on the fight to keep them protected from fur trapping and trophy killing. American grizzlies are now in the spotlight. They were almost gone, but have made a small comeback BECAUSE THEY WERE LISTED AS ENDANGERED and NOT ALLOWED TO BE HUNTED. Very plain and simple. They came back because they were NOT hunted! How plain can it get? Now they are talking about delisting them. Watch, if they do… the numbers will plummet again. Don’t spout out uninformed opinions from your retirement chair, Graeme.

          • Graeme Pollock

            In all States that have controlled hunting the wildlife populations have increased and in many instances require control as their populations are exceeding the habitats capacity to carry them. In areas such as California where the radicals have interfered with scientific wildlife programs declines have been recorded, with the exception of Mtn Lion which are exceeding their range and creating wildlife human conflict.

          • Schroederville

            I live in California, my family has for 4 generations. I belong to CLAW and the Mountain Lion Foundation, I am active in my area with wildlife rehabilitation and support. They are NOT making a huge comeback and human/wildlife conflict with mountain lions is quite low. It’s my backyard. I’ve lived here and hiked and been an outdoors person for 50 years and have never, not one time, been lucky enough to even see a mountian lion.
            Regulated hunting is not the end all be all “management” of wildlife. You pro-hunting fanatics seem to think there are no other people who care about wildlife and you couldn’t be further from the truth.
            It’s a broad and sweeping statement to say that in “all states” that have regulated hunting wildlife populations have increased and you are INCORRECT. In New Hampshire bobcats were hunted to near extinction levels and only when hunting them was banned did they begin to come back. It’s not hard to see what works and what doesn’t, Graeme. Killing is NOT conservation.

          • Graeme Pollock

            I get confused when you debate with someone that states no hunting equals increase of wildlife , then in the next sentence tells you that in California where hunting is closed to mountain lion they have hiked and walked the place flat and never seen a mountain lion, not once in 50 years! As a practicing wildlife manager that tells me something is horribly wrong with the current management regime :Which is no hunting , so much like Kenya , the no hunting idea is flawed .

          • Schroederville

            Oh dear, Graeme, no need to get confused. Here, let me explain it to you: California is one of the most densely populated states in the U.S., a tourist destination of the highest order around the world. Mountain lions are not threatened nor endangered in California. In fact, the lion population is relatively high in California and their numbers appear to be stable after 26 years of no hunting. Mountain lions are legally classified as “specially protected species”. This has nothing to do with their relative abundance and does not imply that they are rare. It is estimated that there are between 4,000 and 6,000 mountain lions in the state of California, but counts are difficult to get because of their elusive nature. Mountain lions are solitary and very shy. They travel over great distances and keep away from people. I live in Santa Barbara, an area with a lot of mountains and wilderness, it is mountain lion country, but there is such a vast amount of land in this county they are able to easily keep away from the hiking trails and campground areas. I tend to sometimes go off the beaten paths when I’m out in the wilderness, but it is also very hot here and mountain lions mostly travel at night, so despite my high level of outdoor involvement, I have never been lucky enough to see one of our wonderful state mountian lions. Thank God they are protected! As habitats are encroached upon by more and more people here and in Africa, the necessity of protecting wildlife from being gunned down by hunters becomes even more crucial.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Yawn , I remain confused , no hunting still you never see a mountain lion in California whereas in Utah , Nevada where you can hunt them you trip over them there so many = conserved by hunting dollars.

            Anyway the point is anti hunting rhetoric and their donation seeking agendas are about to face a group formed who will now seek out and expose these lies for what they , as a start here below is the expose on Leakey and the ivory burning :

            RN…

            The Conservation Imperative.

            June 4 at 1:09pm ·

            Interesting article by Ron Thomson about Kenya’s Ivory Burn 2016
            History repeating itself?

            Kenya’s disgraceful burning of 105 tonnes of elephant ivory and 1 350… kg of rhino horn, on 30 April 2016, was history repeating itself.

            In 1992, The South African Guardian and Weekly Newspaper invited me to share a public platform at Wits University with Kenya’s sycophantic animal rightist, Richard Leaky – who was, at that time, still the Director of the Kenyan Wildlife Service (KWS). We debated the elephant management controversy.

            Kenya’s controversial burning of 12 tonnes of ivory in 1989 was, then, still a very hot topic.

            During the intermission – whilst Leaky and I were having a quiet cup of tea together – I asked him outright: “How can you justify burning US$ 3 million worth of ivory on a continent which is crying out for international aid, and where poverty faces many human communities?”

            “Hah!” he retorted with delight. “You obviously don’t know the full story. You see…” he explained, “The American government approached me and asked me what the value of Kenya’s stockpile of ivory was. I already knew the answer so I told them – US$ 3 million”. (The price of ivory is much higher today!)

            “ ‘Would you be prepared to publicly burn it?’ they asked me.”
            “ ‘And why should I do that?’ I asked them.”

            “ ‘Because we believe that you support the proposed CITES ivory trade ban’ they said. ‘And because we believe that, if the proposal is to succeed, it will be necessary to create a huge spectacle – one extravagant enough to catch the imagination of world society. A huge pile of burning elephant tusks will do just that,’ they replied.”

            “ ‘And what will Kenya get out of it?’ I asked them.” Leaky smiled at me then: “That is how it started,” he asserted.
            “And, in the end, what DID Kenya get out of it?” I asked Leaky.
            “We were given an outright grant of US$ 150 million to restructure Kenya’s tourism industry,” Leaky grinned smugly. “And that was followed by another US$ 150 million which is being spread over the next ten years. This latter amount is being used to reinforce the tourism enterprises that we set up with the original grant. The second 150 million dollars is a soft, low interest loan. And we are in the middle of spending that money right now,” he beamed.

            “So you burned the ivory!”

            “So we burned US$ 3 million worth of ivory,” Leaky agreed, “and in return the Americans gave us US$ 300 million for doing so.” He grinned then like a Cheshire cat. “So, at a cost of US$ 3 million, Kenya gained US$ 300 million. That, to my way of thinking, is a pretty good bargain…. don’t you think?”

            Two most important messages emanate from this tale:

            (1). The burning of the ivory was not Kenya’s idea – although the 1989 ivory bonfire was hailed by the international press as giving a clear message to the world that “AFRICA” was not prepared to tolerate the alleged continued commercial poaching of its elephants by the much vaunted Chinese ‘mafia’.

            (2). The American administration was working “in cahoots” with the accredited animal rights NGOs at CITES – who, that year, had proposed and unanimously endorsed the ivory trade ban. There is no doubt at all, however, that the American administration also wanted the ivory trade ban established; and there is no doubt at all that their connivance with Leakey over the bonfire was to reinforce what the animal rightist NGOs had planned and were doing at CITES.

            Furthermore, although the proposal for the CITES ivory trade ban in 1989 was signed by the Tanzanian president, it was Britain’s Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) (A radical animal rightist NGO) that compiled and wrote the protocol; and it was they who orchestrated the entire charade. Without their intervention, planning and the execution of their plan, there would have been no ivory trade ban proposal in 1989.
            So the1989 CITES trade ban proposal was not an African initiative at all. Nor was the proposal made by an official CITES delegate. It was contrived and executed entirely by a British animal rights NGO.

            And now we have a repeat performance in 2016. Just prior to this year’s CITES convention in Johannesburg, we have had an ivory bonfire in Kenya that is 10 times bigger than the one in 1989; and what do we have on the forthcoming CITES agenda? An animal rights’ orchestrated proposal to place a complete ban on the entire wildlife trade worldwide!

            I wonder who paid who (in Kenya) this time round? Someone, or some organisation, must have greased at least one very important Kenyan palm to get the country to agree to such an expensive bonfire(?) – which, this year, sent over US$ 200 million worth of ivory and rhino horn up in smoke.

            The irony of this whole debacle is that when the fires were roaring, Uhuru Kenyatta – Kenya’s current president – proudly proclaimed: “Ivory is worthless unless it is on elephants”.
            I don’t think Uhuru’s mother, ‘Mamma Ngina’ – currently considered to be the richest woman in Africa – will agree with him!

            Ngina Kenyatta is reputed to have been ‘the chief butcher’ in the continuous commercial poaching events that took place in Kenya in the 1970s and 1980s. During that period – as First Lady of the Land – it is alleged that she promised immunity from arrest to her army of village poachers who systematically reduced Kenya’s elephant population from an estimated 270 000 to 20 000 in less than 20 years – during which time she also ordered the killing of 10 000 black rhinos for their horns.
            Between 1977 and 1993 Tanzania’s elephants were said to have been reduced from 365 000 to 53 000 in a similar, but separate, exercise.

            The so-called ‘Chinese mafia’ and East Africa’s ‘greedy peasants’ – whom the animal rightist NGOs accused jointly of being the people behind these wildlife crimes – were not the real culprits at all. Those who orchestrated the poaching events were Kenya’s and Tanzania’s political and social elite!

            Nevertheless, a mass of poverty-stricken and unemployed rural peasants were guilty of pulling many of the triggers. They acted, however, (according to the media and others) under instructions from ‘the highest authorities in the land.’

            The poached ivory (and rhino horn) was periodically containerised and shipped out to the Far Eastern markets, without CITES export permits (but with presidential approvals), from East Africa’s own Indian Ocean seaports. The raping of East Africa’s elephants and rhinos in the 1970s and 1980s, therefore, happened within what amounted to national, institutional and industrial business phenomena.

            The 1989 CITES ivory trade ban – ostensibly instituted to ‘save’ the African elephant from extinction – therefore, was a complete farce.

            Now we have the same cycle – almost act for act – repeating itself. The animal rightists’ objective, this time round, is the total destruction of the wildlife trade. And when you add up all the markers, the current American administration is, once again, deeply embedded in the conspiracy.

            The tragedy is that, if the current American administration and its animal rightist NGO surrogates succeed, wildlife throughout Africa will be doomed. And South Africa’s commercial wildlife industry will be destroyed.

            Don’t anybody think otherwise than that the current American administration is working hand-in-glove with the animal rights brigade (again) with regard to their joint onslaught in Africa at this time! Neither of them, therefore, can be called a friend of Africa; of Africa’s people; or of Africa’s wildlife.

            “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Sun Tzu. The Art of War.

            There is a lot at stake here, and the people of southern Africa should not be in any way complacent about all the animal rights propaganda that is being constantly forced down their throats.

            Ron Thomson.

          • San Simeon

            You are an uninformed LIAR, plain and simple. On top of that, you are a ignorant hypocrite that is a raging biggot to boot. I guess that means you’ve got all the bases covered.

          • Schroederville

            If it is flawed, it is much less flawed than the idea of killing for “conservation”. I told you why I have never seen a mountain lion in the wild, they are shy solitary creatures, nocturnal and I don’t hike with tracking dogs… they stay away from people unless they are cornered. They are making a comeback here and it is precisely because they are not being hunted!

  • Andy Ault

    Dereck and Beverly Joubert have made some amazing movies…this has gained them endorsements and sponsorship or other financial support for their movie making….most of the organizations that support them have an anti-hunting policy – at least on the surface – because this is such a draw card to potential supporters…and as we have seen in the cases of Corey Knowlton, Walter Palmer and so on…such a death wish for anybody that publicly supports hunting. When sponsorship and endorsements from these types of organizations is on the line…how can he do anything but make a public show of denouncing the hunting industry….i’m sorry but I don’t buy his reply in the slightest…its just about money…into his pocket that will allow him to continue hanging out at places like Mombo and the Dhow camp.
    Derecks reply manipulates the numbers yet again in favor of the antis….and includes two of Botswana’s premier camps who only the super-wealthy can afford to stay at…and makes no allowance for the thousands of kilometers of land in Africa that isn’t set in the heart of a wildlife epicentre….i am so bored and disappointed that Africa geographic has become such a public whipping post for the anti-hunters….it used to be a good magazine…i guess going broke forces you into desperate measures to recover your financial credibility…but at the moment I reckon a public show of distaste probably buys you a few more advertisers eh???

    • Gordon Goldhaber

      hunters and hunt supporters are the real antis. Don’t think people will buy the lies of the hunting industry anymore. None of us buy the “conservation” argument, so that debate ended long ago.

  • Susan Grove Jacobson

    Fantastic explanation of the facts, as noted by a respected conservationist! While we can love the animals and want them to be here for our children and grandchildren , we are forever having to try and explain facts and emotions to hunters, most often falling on deaf ears.
    I can only home that within my lifetime I have the ability to see animals that live in safety on this earth, not canned, caged, or kept, but in the wild where they can live the lives they were born to live.
    If your collection of interesting facts and numbers convinces a few hunters that conserving the animals is real conservation, you sir have saved many animals. From an animal lover I thank you sir. 🙂

    • Land Use Economics
      • Bundubele

        Sir, I was encouraged to read a book when a student called the Geography of Poverty and Development (A. O’Connor) when a student. In my opinion, if material like this was being promoted at the time it is no wonder social/wildlife policies in Africa are in disarray and vary in success. However, as you say, wildlife in South Africa perhaps has increased, but what has been the true social cost over the years? Animals are not more important than people but there again valuing wildlife simply in terms of a financial resource and not in terms of another form of life that we can enjoy as our cultural heritage and learn from and look after as a precious inheritance is short-sighted. That ‘bushmeat’ is largely immune to foot and mouth and other diseases that commercial livestock is prone as well as enhancing the environment, surely encourages one to think that if local people are to eat well, then commercial wildlife ranches should be encouraged that would serve tourism as well as feed a hungry population? Perhaps controversial, but something to consider?

  • Ed Camilleri

    Very well said Mr Joubert. Trophy hunting must be made obsolete and nature enjoyed at its fullest by leaving everything as found

    • James Kydd

      Tourism isn’t the answer

      Hunters are willing to go to remote and unstable areas that most photographic tourists are unwilling to venture into. Far more photographic tourists would have to travel to Africa than hunters to make up the same level of revenue, so the carbon footprint from all that air travel would surely have asignificant environmental impact. It should also be noted that the potential for nature tourism is not equally distributed, with the industry often focused only around a few locations. This leaves other regions without access to tourism revenue. Oh, and let’s not forget that wildlife reserves can also kill lions.

      If the goal is to preserve populations and species (as opposed to the welfare of individual animals), countries with healthy wildlife populations should be able to use their natural resources to cover the costs of management. This is particularly the case in countries such as Zimbabwe, one of the poorest places in the world.

      Zimbabwe has a tradition of using trophy hunting to promote wildlife conservation. Through the CAMPFIRE program, which ran from 1989 to 2001, more than $20m was given to participating communities, 89% of which came from sports hunting. In more recent times, populations of elephants and other large herbivores have been shown to benefit from trophy hunting.

      Zimbabwean trophy hunting generates roughly $16m of revenue annually. While it has been rightly pointed out that only 3% of this goes towards local communities, the ethical implications of removing this money without a clear alternative need to be examined.

      The economic impact of trophy hunting in comparison to tourism as a whole may not be huge, but what is the alternative if it is made illegal? Zambia banned trophy hunting of big cats in 2013, only to reverse it earlier this year because the government needed the money to fund conservation.

      Conservation costs money — so does the damage done by lions killing livestock. It is not clear whether photographic tourism alone could cover these financial burdens.

      Improving the situation

      If trophy hunting is to continue, how can we make it more sustainable? One study suggested we need to enforce age restrictions on trophy animals throughout the entire country , improve monitoring, change quotas over time depending on environmental conditions and ensure lion hunts are at least 21 days long.

      Another study found that trophy hunting can be beneficial to lion conservation when the income is shared with locals who live with this species (and have to deal with the negative consequences of their presence).

      While it is sad that we sometimes have to resort to killing animals for conservation, let’s not allowemotions to overtake our arguments. Conservation is a complex, difficult industry and needs all the financial help it can get: we are after all living through the sixth mass extinction. How much money will that take to fix?

  • Yasuyo Yamazaki

    Well said!! I love it! !!

  • Hendrik Kruger

    If Joubert is correct, why doesn’t his type of hunting replace real hunting? I know – because the market is not big enough. Hunters on the other side put their money where their mouths are. Get over it, if you are not vegan, stop complaining about hunting. The meat you eat doesn’t grow in supermarket shelves.

    • James Kydd

      Thank you! Thank you! These people debate with literally zero facts on their side or they make it up to serve their agenda.

    • Jill Robinson

      Would be great if you could read and understand the math that Mr. Joubert outlined – photographic safaris far outweigh hunting safaris. It’s simple Hendrik and James.

      • Mats Novak

        Jill, if you researched this rather than taking someone else’s word for it, you would find that less than 1% of gross tourism revenues makes it back to landowners and rural communities in Africa. Henrik is absolutely correct in positing that the market does not favour rural Africans, only tourists and the middelmen who profit from it. Would be great if you could think objectively and understand the math instead of believing an idealistic narrative suited to promote an unrealistic objective.

        • Jill Robinson

          Mats Novak – have done my research and actually the % from hunting that goes back to conservation is between 1% and 3% – depending on the African country. We either need to stay on topic or include conservation of humans. I have yet to meet an African bushman who likes to eat lion meat (for example). Again – you quote 1% from tourism goes back to the community. This is highly unlikely given that there are approximately 20 to 1 tourist lodges as compared to hunting lodges. The amount of local people hired to work these lodges far out numbers those hired to work at a hunting lodge. Therefore, it stands to reason that tourism from this aspect alone, is far more profitable to the local community than hunting. Each lodge hires, depending on size, between 3 and 14 trackers. Most hunting outfits may have 3 to 5. This of course depends on how many tour vehicles are utilized at each lodge. I could go on – but I hope you get the picture.

          • Mats Novak

            World bank reported that in 2012 receipts
            from tourism
            in 2012
            amounted
            to over
            US$36
            billion
            and
            contributed
            just over
            2.8% to
            the region’s
            GDP compared with sustainable hunting that contributed over 8%. That was then. It’s now less than 1% and hunting (yes, that necessary evil) still outperforms. Joubert’s statistics are fatally flawed. Why do you choose to fight statistical data? Is it because it doesn’t suit your preference?

          • Jill Robinson

            Mats Novak – I would never argue stats with anyone. You and I both know that depending on who you talk to – the numbers change accordingly. The World Bank, WWF, NatGeo, and even the Texas hunting groups, all put out numbers that don’t correspond. BUT – just to keep the momentum going – here are a few more FACTS (give or take a % or 2)

            1. In sub-Saharan Africa, some 1.4 million square km are set aside as hunting areas, 22% more than all the region’s protected areas. Annually, about 18,500 tourist hunters come to Africa, and there are about 1,300 hunting companies offering services.

            2. In the 11 countries where trophy hunting takes place, hunting areas take up 110 million hectares, about 14.9% of the total land area.

            3. Tourist hunters take about 105,000 animals per year, including 640 elephants, 3,800 buffalos, 600 lions and 800 leopards.

            4. Hunting income is estimated at about $200 million, half of which accrues to South Africa and half to the other countries.

            5. On average, trophy hunting generates $1.1 dollar per hectare per year, compared with at least $2 per hectare for protected areas. Community income is about $0.1 per hectare per year of their land set aside for hunting, and indicates why communities show little interest in preserving hunting areas and stopping poaching.

            6. The weak socio-economic benefits of trophy hunting and the minimal contribution to conservation argue against setting aside such large areas of land. In Kenya, where the population has increased by a factor of 2.7 since hunting was banned (14 million in 1977 and 38 million in 2008), the nation developed in the mean time a tourism sector 40 times more profitable than hunting, centered on a land area of 8% protected areas.

            7. The contribution of trophy hunting to GDP (%) and the percentage of land area set aside for hunting for various countries is as follows: South Africa (0.04, 13.1), Namibia (0.45, 11.4), Tanzania (0.22, 26.4), Botswana (0.19, 23.0), Zimbabwe (0.29, 16.6), Zambia (0.05, 21.3), Cameroon (0.01, 8.4), Burkina Faso ( 0.02, 3.4), Benin (0.01, 3.6). Only in Burkina Faso and Benin does the land set aside approach the estimated equivalent annual value per hectare of land used for agriculture ($300).

            8. On average in the 11 countries, 14.9% of the land area has been set aside for hunting, and the average contribution of hunting to GDP is 0.06%. This means they are the least economically productive lands in the country. Trophy hunting does therefore not represent economically valuable land use, especially in the context of the need to abate poverty and hunger.

            9. It has been argued that hunting blocks are centered on land that supposedly has no other economic use. This overstated, and the closing of hunting as currently practiced would give far greater returns. It is precisely in those countries where alternative uses are available that one encounters the greatest difficulty in persuading rural populations to maintain hunting areas.

            10. Since the socio-economic and development contributions of trophy hunting are practically zero, their greatest potential contribution should be seen as conservation. That value can only be augmented by conscientious integration of hunting into overall conservation strategies.

            11. In total, 7 countries (Namibia, Tanzania, Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, and Benin) have set aside 696,708 square kilometers for trophy hunting for a total employment of 9,703 people. It should be noted that for many, the employment does not exceed the six-month hunting season

            12. Photographic tourism creates 39 times as much employment on a permanent basis than trophy hunting. Such tourism in the Luangwa National Park (Zambia) alone has created work for about 800 employees, double the number of all employed by trophy hunting in Benin and Burkina Faso combined.

            13. In Zambia, returns from hunting in 2006 to the local population were about $1 million to use 22% of Zambia’s land. In Zimbabwe, each household (average 10 people) received between $1 and $3 per year. In Tanzania, 42 district councils received a grand total of about $1 million per year for the use of 250,000 square kilometers of land. In Benin, 300,000 people shared $70,000, so about $0.23 per person. The African country in which communities earned the least for land set aside for hunting was Tanzania, with an income of $0.04 per hectare per year.

            14. Given such weak returns, there is little incentive to stop poaching in hunting areas, as the informal bush meat sector is much more valuable to the communities. In Ghana, the bush meat trade is estimated to be worth $250 million per year and in Ivory Coast $148 million. It is noteworthy that the annual bush meat trade in Ghana alone exceeds income from trophy hunting in all of Africa. Sadly for conservation, such economic returns of poaching indicate this activity will continue, as there is no competing alternative.

            15. Compared to other forms of tourism, trophy hunting composes only 1% in South Africa and 3% in Tanzania. Such numbers are expected to decrease further. Tourism to Kenya is now approaching a value of $1 billion per year compared to an estimated $30 million earned from hunting (current value) in 1977.

          • Mats Novak

            With all due respect, you just disproved your own theory by virtue of everything you just copy/pasted with the exception of Western Africa, which has everything to do with the volatility of bad democracy and government. Not that other areas in Africa don’t suffer the same thing, but it’s phenomenally worse in that region.

            Explain why since Kenya has implemented a hunting ban in 1977 it has lost 4% per annum wildlife and is continuing to plummet? Even if the value of ecotourism outweighs trophy hunting-which it doesn’t depending on the country you study-then why is Kenya’s wildlife still dropping? The answer is simply that the only beneficiaries of tourism are the foreigners and the safari enterprises. The other thing you wouldn’t know, unless you lived in Kenya was that Jomo Kenyatta was involved in illegal ivory trade. He and his party banned hunting because they didn’t want professional trophy hunters to spot what they were up to and report them.

            I must ask, did you even bother to read what you just copied and pasted? You just quoted the following:

            “In Zambia, returns from hunting in 2006 to the local population were
            about $1 million to use 22% of Zambia’s land. In Zimbabwe, each
            household (average 10 people) received between $1 and $3 per year. In
            Tanzania, 42 district councils received a grand total of about $1
            million per year for the use of 250,000 square kilometers of land. In
            Benin, 300,000 people shared $70,000, so about $0.23 per person. The
            African country in which communities earned the least for land set aside
            for hunting was Tanzania, with an income of $0.04 per hectare per year.”

            So if they were to ban hunting outright, look at how much revenue Zambia’s conservation sector would stand to lose. You are used to operating on more than $1 to $3 per day, but to many rural Africans, that is huge. And I’m sorry, but in those areas, tourism wouldn’t survive and the locals would not benefit at all. And by the principle of simple economics, you can’t just replace it with tourism because not every area being protected by hunters would be sought after by photo tourists.

            Again, you quote the following: “It has been argued that hunting blocks are centered on land that
            supposedly has no other economic use. This overstated, and the closing
            of hunting as currently practiced would give far greater returns.” First, the phrase it has been argued does not imply that it is factually correct. Notice that there are no numbers to back that statement up? I wonder why that could be?

            “Photographic tourism creates 39 times as much employment on a permanent basis than trophy hunting.” If that were true (which it isn’t), then wouldn’t it stand to reason that poaching would subside in those areas of Africa? Yet it hasn’t, as exhibited by increasing poaching in Kenya, the only country where the government owns all wildlife and locals have no means of economic benefit from it, save for tourism, which most of them cannot access monetarily. You see, tourism is great, but it has limitations. You need to put your emotions aside and think of the bigger picture here.

            “In sub-Saharan Africa, some 1.4 million square km are set aside as
            hunting areas, 22% more than all the region’s protected areas. Annually,
            about 18,500 tourist hunters come to Africa, and there are about 1,300
            hunting companies offering services.” Imagine the devastating impact to conservation if those areas were closed down?

            And this statement is the best one of all. “This means they are the least economically productive lands in the
            country. Trophy hunting does therefore not represent economically
            valuable land use, especially in the context of the need to abate
            poverty and hunger.” If they are economically unproductive lands, then logic would dictate that nothing other than a conservation area, which is given a hunting quota system would work.

            Please, I implore you not to Google search and copy/paste. Come up with your own original ideas. 🙂

            At the end of the day, you should try to accept that just because you personally don’t like something, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t have a place within conservation. I don’t hunt, but I see the value in it within areas where tourism is limited.

            I would also encourage you to watch this. It flies in the face of any supposition that ecotourism outweighs hunting. In my opinion, both are needed now more than ever as complements of one another.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjUrzB2xxIA

            Cheers!

          • Jill Robinson

            Matts – the whole point of any intelligent discussion, is that there are various points of view put forth. You want to be a ‘right’ fighter and are only trying to justify why YOU believe something so strongly. Because I am interested in finding out what the facts are, so, yes, I keep reams of information, both positive and negative and see no reason not to cut and paste. The minority can only speak of their evil predation on iconic animals purely for pleasure, in terms of millions, while the true picture from the majority of ecotourism can fully support the argument in terms of BILLIONS. I have zero doubt that trophy hunting serves no purpose in conservation of our endangered animals.

          • Graeme Pollock

            These figures are grossly outdated /incorrect , the latest Surveys conducted by the University of the North and others reveal game ranchers in SA have invested over R200 Billion in the South African economy and have converted over 20 million hectares of land to private conservation and wildlife – it is the largest industry compared to other agricultural industries . The annual turn over of the wildlife industry is estimated at R122.7 billion – the more up to date GDP figure is 8% .

          • Graeme Pollock

            JILL , the problem with any statistic quoted is that it is subjective and used to prove your point , hence unless a full source is disclosed only a fool would take it as a educated example – to highlight you say photographic safaris create more employment – but as a stand alone point it is untrue – 1 hunting bed creates 15 jobs , 1 photographic bed creates about 4 , there are however 24 beds in a photographic camp so yes it does create more jobs but not per client , but it also creates 24 times more human waste , larger carbon foot print , more urban sprawl as HQ hire more staff so from an ideological point and to limit impact on nature surely the smaller hunting camps are better – see what I mean .

            The issue is both activities can prove they contribute to conservation even if the anti hunters fail to see this , there is enough science out there to disprove the anti hunting babble. It is arrogance of opinion that makes one side not see or value the others , in religion this leads to wars – in conservation it leads to loss of wildlife and habitat , in the same way – religions are fighting over who’s God is better , so the anti hunters are arrogantly fighting to prove their opinion and way is better . A travesty against wildlife .

  • Fredrick Pine Dithapo

    Indeed hunting should certainly not exist in the wild. I agree with Derek, as a grandchild of one of the creators of the moremi game reserve. I do have the same idea that my grandfather Michael Dithapo had in 1962, when they initiated the idea of forming the then fauna preservation society of Ngmiland now Moremi game resrve. The idea was tabled after witnessing decline in population of wild animals in Ngamiland especially the Okavango delta due to extensive hunting by trophy hunting parties from around the world.In one of the meetings of the society, the other member Gaselemogwe Segadimo once said, “We support the idea of the game reserve because we have seen how the safari companies are over-shooting our animals and this has made us realize that this could go on for years; our young generation [bana ba rona], will be born to find no animals, except in pictures. We want to look after our wildlife”

    • Real African

      Sound logic and true preservation for future generations to admire!

      • Schroederville

        Hear! Hear!

    • Peter Egan

      Frederick, you must be very proud of your Grandfather and the other chiefs and elders who created the Moremi reserve, their decision was far sighted especially for that time and people like myself who have visited Moremi many times can only thank the Motswana for the way Botswana is trying to look after its wildlife. I just pray that when President Ian Khama’s time in office comes to an end his successors will continue to protect wildlife by retaining the ban on hunting.

    • Graeme Pollock

      It is reported in the press communities have approached DWNP and MWET to allow communities to hunt as the ban has not replaced the benefits created by hunting

  • Bob Frump

    Dr Craig Packet in his 2013 assessment of lion economics seems to me to have the best data and stats on the problem –and a conclusion that wild lions need to be fenced off from humans and the area patrolled and managed at a cost of $4K U.S. per square km — management expenses spent now only by high end resorts and photo safari ops.
    So arguing extensively over safari v hunting may feel good and hating on the hunters is an easy reflex and may raise some cash short term, but no one is speaking to the larger problem. Which is habitat. Don’t understand trophy hunting myself but thinking that photo safaris can carry the day is supported by no serious, independent study I’ve seen. Having traveled extensively I the Selous for example there is wonderful Habitat–but not great photo conditions. Hunters

    • James Kydd

      Absolutely!

    • Gordon Goldhaber

      May I ask for Scientific evidence? If no evidence supports such a claim, then this is merely hogwash.

      • Graeme Pollock

        Gordon you clearly have a limited source of reading material , limited to non scientific publications and I reiterate Lion Aid is the least credible as is anything manipulated by HSUS , Born Free Foundation , PETA , etc , are agenda driven anti utilization propaganda. IUCN and CITIES sub committees have more than enough biological data and studies and you should peruse their web sites. You use the same sentence = fatally flawed as if you have some kind of academic qualification on african conservation – if so do share , other wise start your blurbs with – my uneducated opinion is ……, here is a start look up Niassa Lion Research , read Packers initial lion population studies ( before he jumped ship ) , look up Dr Paula White ( google) , I am not going to hold you by the hand as you explore the science of wildlife conservation – expand your knowledge and google, If you want to look up my publications look up IUCN Conference on Convention of National Parks and Protected Areas (CNNPA) Skukuza 1993 and the World Convention on Tourism for the Environment , Venezuela 1993 , for presentations did by myself representing Community based conservation issues and formal Conservation Authorities . But your arm chair ramblings are as you put it ” fatally flawed ” is an understatement. While you hopefully do some research on Lion you may want to look up Dr Butch Smuts’s work in KNP and Lion control – you may be shocked about the outcome of how lions respond to over shooting.

  • Gertrude

    So can we have some bottom-line figures, please? How much revenue has hunting brought in during the last 10 years, and how much revenue has photo-tourism brought in?

    Because the last credible statistic I heard was that hunting accounts for 56% of tourism revenue.

    • Allen Brand

      Zimbabwe has a tradition of using trophy hunting to promote wildlife conservation. Through the CAMPFIRE program, which ran from 1989 to 2001, more than $20m was given to participating communities, 89% of which came from sports hunting. In more recent times, populations of elephants and other large herbivores have been shown to benefit from trophy hunting.

      Zimbabwean trophy hunting generates roughly $16m of revenue annually. While it has been rightly pointed out that only 3% of this goes towards local communities, the ethical implications of removing this money without a clear alternative need to be examined.

      The economic impact of trophy hunting in comparison to tourism as a whole may not be huge, but what is the alternative if it is made illegal? Zambia banned trophy hunting of big cats in 2013, only to reverse it earlier this year because the government needed the money to fund conservation.

      A 2000 report from TRAFFIC, an organization that works with the WWF, IUCN, and CITES to track the international trade of wildlife, describes how Namibia alone was the site of almost 16,000 trophy hunts that year. Those 16,000 animals represent a wide variety of species – birds, reptiles, mammals, and even primates – both endangered and not. They include four of the so-called “big five” popular African game: lion, Cape buffalo, leopard, and rhinoceros. (Only the elephant was missing.) The hunters brought eleven million US dollars with them to spend in the Namibian economy. And that doesn’t include revenue from non-trophy recreational hunting activities, which are limited to four species classified as of “least concern” by the IUCN: Greater Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok and Warthog.

      Bottom line, photo tourism brings in more money in the national parks, but less than 1% goes to rural communities.

      • Gertrude

        I just want to know the exact figures to be able to compare hunting vs non-hunting.

        And whether, if hunting was discontinued, it could be replaced by increased phototourism. That seems unlikely, and if so it seems very silly and irresponsible that people like Derek Joubert would like to see at least half of the revenue from tourism simply disappear, without even being able to suggest a viable alternative.

        • Allen Brand

          It’s idealism that doesn’t work in reality. Thank God groups like WWF and IUCN are dedicated to scientific based statistics that offset this trend. Otherwise wildlife would lose out in the end. Most animal lovers don’t want to deal with the fact that this is a necessary tool (not one I would participate in) but a necessary one that helps mitigate the balance between people and wildlife. It preserves precious wilderness.

          • Gertrude

            What I really want to know is the exact figures. Yet I am still in the dark as to this simple bit of information.

            In Dollars (a) how such has hunting brought in in the last 10 years; (b) how much have other wildlife-based tourism activities brought in in the last 10 years. 2 Simple figures.

            And (c), what plans do the likes of Derek Joubert have to replace the income lost if hunting is discontinued? How will he DOUBLE the number of tourists coming to Southern Africa? Because that is what it will take.

          • Allen Brand

            It’s difficult to give a hard number because it’s a complex equation,
            each country reports revenue differently and some don’t distinguish
            between revenue from hunting and nature tourism.

            The important thing to remember is that It takes money for these animals to exist. A lot of people don’t
            recognize that. An endangered species like the black rhino
            needs a lot of support — land, protection, management, studies. Hunting helps fund that and so does tourism. To completely ban one would be detrimental to the species. And as you say, Mr. Joubert has offered no alternative in places where tourism doesn’t work.

            The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges the practice can be helpful

            “The removal of limited numbers of males has been shown to stimulate
            population growth in some areas,” according to the U.S. Fish and
            Wildlife Service. “Removing specific individuals from a population can
            result in reduced male fighting, shorter calving intervals and reduced
            juvenile mortality.”

            If you can find some overarching numbers, do please let me know.

          • Gertrude

            Well I think that someone should find out these figures, and right quick.

            Because that’s what it’s all about. No-one is going to read long books like your last post. They need to get the facts.

          • Schroederville

            The U.S. Fish and Wildlife is run by…. HUNTERS. Dan Ashe, the Director is a hunter… they are in the pockets of hunting money. Twisted logic and doctored reports to benefit the hunting industry. It’s high time that killers were taken OUT of conservation. The “CON” in conservation is that killing does anything to help. It doesn’t. Ban trophy hunting NOW!

    • Bundubele

      I gave you an ‘up’ for effort, but may I point out, I personally don’t think the figures you ask for would reflect true values. An economic geographer tries to look at everything – the add-ons and spin-offs of an industry. Its really difficult to get a complete picture as you probably appreciate. What you can’t measure is the ‘feel good’ factor and this is very important. You only go back somewhere -if you can – if you think you are going to enjoy yourself. What you are promoting is monetary gain and not well-being of visitors who would like to visit your continent.

      • Gertrude

        Nonsense. What I want to know is the revenue brought in by hunting versus the revenue brought in by other tourism activities. In other words, I want to know what the bottom line is. It is a normal question to ask, and you are trying to obfuscate a very simple issue.

        I would also like to point out that the general point of view of people such as Derek Joubert seems to be that people should go on photo safaris instead of hunting safaris, and that if hunting were to be discontinued, that they would do so. They will not. So in fact half (or whatever the bottom-line figure is) of tourism revenue would disappear, never to be seen again. This important point, however, appears to be lost on 99% of the people involved in this debate. Why? Are they completely stupid? Or just dishonest?

        • Bundubele

          Okay, take some other land use activity like tobacco farming. A great export crop, and locally consumed generating proportionally massive revenues. It also encourages growth in the healthcare sector and the funeral services. Families are drawn together when someone gets sick, dies and is buried. My question to you is, and I’m being cynical, if you can draw a parallel is this the way we should live and nurture an economy? I’m sure hunting will go on as long as people want to do it – like smoking. But weigh up the long term benefits of gently restructuring to a healthier, more balanced lifestyle that people can enjoy for longer in a safe environment. As for revenue disappearing, there is a whole world out there of alternatives to make society a nicer place to be in, given the opportunity and encouragement from appropriate authorities.

          • Gertrude

            Stop being silly.

          • Bundubele

            Whatever….. The wicked will fall into their own nets all together, while I, for my part, pass by.”—Ps 141:9, 10.

          • Gertrude

            You are being silly. We are talking here about the livelihoods and wellbeing of many people. You do not appreciate the seriousness of the issue, and seem to think that it’s nothing that they should suddenly have no money, and in many cases, starve. Well up yours. If you think it’s a good idea to deprive others of their livelihoods (as well as to have far smaller areas of land set aside as wilderness areas), then I suggest that you come up with a viable plan for those people to make a living in some other way before spouting your opinions.

          • Jill Robinson

            Gertrude – YOU need to get your facts straight and stop being so rude. You obviously have little knowledge of what actually is happening. Humans are to blame for this entire mess. Long before Africa saw it’s first humans – animals had the freedom to live free. They controlled their own numbers. Fast forward to today and humans cannot or will not control their own numbers. They take over large tracts of land and complain when an elephant eats their maize, or a crocodile eats their uncle, or a lion takes a goat or two. The animals were not informed that the rules had changed, they just continue to live their lives. It;s the animals that have been seriously reduced in numbers and now have to live a much different life in very reduced land areas. Along comes a trophy hunter with apparently zero knowledge of the ripple effect caused by killing a dominant male lion, or, over time, (which is now) how the gene pool is diminished because they only like to kill the biggest and best of any species.

          • Gertrude

            So what? Nowhere in your dreamy dream do you mention how you will find an alternative source of income for these people.

          • Jill Robinson

            LOL – I take it that you are amongst those that have no cerebral activity and therefore cannot think for yourself. Humans are SO smart that they cannot figure out how to survive according to you. But I digress – lets stay on topic. Humans have a voice – animals don’t. Currently animals are controlled by corrupt governments, people and of course hunters/ poachers without a moral compass. THEY are who we are fighting for.

          • Gertrude

            Oh stop foaming at the mouth.

          • Bundubele

            Thank you for your point of view, and I appreciate your effort but I choose to remain with mine.

          • Gertrude

            Yours is a very uninvolved point of view. I urge you to try & put yourself in the shoes of those affected.

  • Emily Phillips

    If hunting goes, tourism suffers!

    • Real African

      Wow, I wish you a speedy recovery with your cranial flatulence!

      • Dave

        2011 Goldman Prize winner Raoul du Toit is the Director of the Lowveld Rhino Trust in Zimbabwe and has worked to support rhino conservation since 1986. He works around the large Lowveld reserves to monitor rhinos, address injuries, reinforce efforts to tackle poaching, and build community awareness of the need to protect rhinos. Du Toit has been growing increasingly concerned about the international outcry, which has led to a suspension by the Zimbabwean government of all hunting-related activities in the area where Cecil was killed, and what this means for the endangered black rhino. “Our large rhino populations, while not hunted themselves [hunting of rhinos is not allowed in Zimbabwe], depend on safari hunting to maintain the economic viability of the large conservancies in which they are protected. Therefore, any reduction in the economic viability of these areas through a knee-jerk reaction to safari hunting would be of grave concern, and I have to juggle the views of some anti-hunting donors with the harsh realities on the ground.”

        I wish you a speedy recovery for your ability to see beyond your own stupidity. Is it possible your mother should have, ahem, drank you down, instead of taken you in?

  • dmiles

    Well its not scientifical prooved that it is detrimental you are putting a one side version

  • Lebo Molata

    Please can we have some photographic safaris in areas like CT1.

  • Lebo Molata

    Some people I know had jobs with hunting in Botswana. Where are their jobs now? Not with photographic safaris, as promised.

  • Graeme Pollock

    Dear Dereck ,

    It is stated that there will always be 10% to the far right and 10% to the far left – it is the middle 80% that determine the future of our wildlife , if they are misinformed it will be catastrophic for Africa’s wildlife – as seen in Kenya where 85% of its wildlife was lost after the country banned conservation hunting.

    In response to some of the misinformation and misguided
    comments on hunting which is a universally accepted tool of nature
    conservation. The sustainable use of wildlife to ensure the future conservation
    of wild lands, wildlife and Biodiversity is a proven concept and supported by
    the IUCN and CITIES. These bodies reached this consensus after extensive scientific research ( peer reviewed).

    It is therefore only the misinformed that will continue to
    debate this academic fact, whereas I would guide them to research visit the web
    sites of these institutions so as to better understand the reality of
    conservation issues and challenges. Everybody is free to an opinion but one would
    hope that they would have researched the facts and not only subscribed to
    coffee table magazines or “disneyfied “ TV channels entertainment as the basis
    of their opinion.

    That being said it would help to touch on some pertinent
    points when debating the continued role of hunting in wildlife conservation.

    * Kenya
    banned hunting and it subsequently lost 85% of its wildlife population. The areas previously
    protected by hunting companies were evacuated and few or if any photographic companies took over the anti-poaching and or policing of the now vacant areas.

    In contrast – in South Africa the authorities accelerated their involvement of hunting companies/ ranchers in assisting with wildlife conservation – this gave rise to over 20 million hectares of previously marginal /agriculture land being converted to wildlife lands on
    the back of huntersdollars. This increased wildlife land has resulted in an increase of South African wildlife of nearly ten fold than any previously recorded in South Africa history .

    Clearly hunting funds and ensures wildlife protection and when it is removed the
    wildlife suffers irepairable damage.

    But why would this be the reason :

    To start with another example : in 1929 there were just 121
    Bontebok left in Africa , today there are over 8000 Bontebok , with 85% of the
    population on private ( hunting ) ranch land. This is due to the visionary action of authorities to lift the hunting ban on Bontebok in the late ‘80’s and allow ranchers to
    utilize excess animals on a sustainable basis – this made sure land owners
    looked after this valuable species. The same happened to Black Wildebeest ,
    Mountain Zebra , Sable , Roan and White Rhino – all critically endangered
    indemic species in South Africa , which once opened up to conservation hunting
    turned the destiny of these species around.
    In contrast : hunting of the Tiger was banned in 1976 and since then the
    Tiger has accelerated towards extinction.

    There is a reason that the only countries where species such
    as Elephant, Lion , Buffalo , leopard , Crocodile , Hippo, are not endangered
    or locally extinct . The common factor is that those countries have sustainable
    hunting as a key conservation tool.

    But how does killing something benefit its species :

    In a nutshell – most of the wildlife of Africa is found
    adjacent or inside tribal lands and National Parks. Most of South Africa’s
    wildlife is in either Formal Protected areas or Game Ranches. In both instances
    wildlife is conserved where it has value or provides tangible benefits to the
    custodians. Where it does not or where protection is dangerous or expensive the
    wildlife is exterminated quickly. Africa is different to Europe or North America in that most rural communities live below the poverty line and every day is a day of survival . So if the wildlife does not contribute to their survival it will be poached for food or removed to
    make room for subsistent agriculture.

    So where wildlife contributes – it is conserved – where it
    does not it is eaten or exterminated .

    As mentioned many times before the Botswana Wildlife Management Association (BWMA) and the Botswana Wildlife Producers association BWPA) would welcome the oppurtunity to engage in discussions with you and Ian Michler in regards to the many accusations made and the misinformation spread in regards to the benefits of the conservation hunting sector . The key issues being ;

    1. There have been countless accusations that illegal acts were conducted by hunting companies in Botswana ( as mentioned in your opening points ) , by yourself and Ian Michler , we have consistently requested information so that action can be taken against them should this in fact be true. However of concern is the fact that these illegal acts were not reported to the police or DWNP at the time , surely to watch /observe / record a crime being committed and do nothing about it – is in itself a crime. Is it not true that you would have long time ago taken action / laid charges against these so called crimes if they in fact had happened. But again to ensure there is no confusion – we again ask for evidence / police reports / even sworn affidavits would do , so we as the Assoc can take action , otherwise we would appreciate these mis-truths be stopped once and for all.

    2. If single use photographic based land use is the best and most beneficial use , then why not allow for multiple use tendering on the marginal areas of Botswana. Currently the lease fee / royalty structure offered by photographic tourism leases is less than half that multiple use hunting companies would offer ?

    3. Areas such as KD 1 and KD 2 where closed down when hunting was suspended , for over 10 years now these areas have lay barren because no photographic development has taken place – even when tenders were put out by government. The lions in these areas are probably completely wiped out without the protection of the hunting companies who have had to vacate the area. Why were these communities abandoned after they changed the land use from agriculture to wildlife ?

    4. In 2013 hunting was suspended even after consultation with all sectors of the Tourism industry in Botswana who unanimously voted against the closure of hunting at the annual Tourism Pitso in Gaborone. At all workshops they advised that the lodge and eco-tourism sectors were not interested in the marginal areas of Botswana but they still deserved protection and that the hunting companies were the best option to ensure these areas were conserved. Three years later not a single eco-tourism company including yours has tendered on the abandoned areas to the detriment of the wildlife of the area. Die off’s from lack of water ( originaly supplied by hunting companies ) have exceeded the number of animals killed by hunting.

    5. Surrounding the core conservation areas lies the buffer zone which had a first layer of photographic based activities , then the hunting buffer zone seperated the wildlife areas from the farms and communities , with the banning of hunting the hunting companies have vacated the buffer zone and stopped pumping water , now the migrating wildlife come into the areas and find no water and push through to the community / farming areas resulting in unprecedented human wildlife conflict , it is estimated that more wildlife is shot now in human wildlife conflict areas than were shot by hunters when hunting was allowed – the difference is hunters only shot old males. It is also estimated that three times the number of predators are shot now than when they were conserved under the sustainable use program of hunting.

    Sadly we are all trying to achieve the same objective which is to conserve and protect Biodiversity .

    • Schroederville

      Sorry, buddy, but hunting is NOT a “universally accepted tool of nature conservation”. It is killing. Period. No conservation there. Apex predators like lions and leopards, especially, should not be hunted. I don’t buy your logic at all.

    • Gordon Goldhaber

      I’m sorry to say, the bulk of your arguments are flawed.

      Like most hunt-supporters, you use the infamous Kenya argument. I’d like to tell you that Kenya has lost 70%, not 85%. The moratorium on commerical hunting is not the cause for this, nor is there scientific evidence to suggest that it was.

      Most conservationists now conclude that Kenya’s loss in wildlife was due to corruption, rapid population growth, widespread poverty, and mainly poor management

      What you also fail to mention is the wildlife declines in Tanzania, which has lost 60% of it’s elephant population, as well as Mozambique, which has lost just as much, if not more Wildlife than Kenya. Both of these countries lost most of their wildlife for much of the same reasons as Kenya. However, Kenya has recently been lauded for significant anti-poaching efforts, as the country is now home to 38,000-40,000 elephants, as opposed to South Africa’s 17,000-20,000

      I must also note that Tanzania’s Selous Game Reserve no longer contains the black rhino, and elephants have crashed to a mere fraction of their former numbers.

      In the case of Botswana, Wildlife areas like the Okavango Delta under Photographic tourism brought considerably more benefits to Botswana than those same areas did under hunting – often by a factor of over one thousand times. The only people suffering from job losses are those employed by the hunting industry. Not to mention each and every former hunting concession is now being converted or is in the process of being converted to photographic tourism. Conversions from hunting areas to photographic areas have resulted in successful photo safari camps, lodges and concessions. According to Khama, the transition from hunting concessions to photographic concessions is being assisted by a Government Community Development Fund and is Highly successful. Wildlife is being carefully protected and numbers are growing. Alarmist projections are more than hunters propaganda and Botswana is on a careful, well-thought-out course to conserve wildlife resources.

      Such success has been seen even in areas where trophy hunting is lucrative, such as Londolozi in South Africa.

      To address the claim that retaliation killings increase without hunting, this has been since debunked as there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest such a claim. Yes Kenya may not have as much lions as the 1970’s, but neither does Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. Oxford has also admitted that 69% of the lions in concessions near Hwange were lost to trophy hunters or retaliation killings. Reason for this decline? A mere fraction of a trophy fee goes to communities, the rest goes back to the outfitter. I must also mention that Namibia has a mere 600 lions left in the country, which is in fact less than Kenya.

      Overall, The argument you’ve made in your comment have little if not any evidence supporting them, as they are mainly theoretical and not scientifically proven.

      Sources:

      http://www.lionaid.org/news/2016/02/another-excuse-for-trophy-hunting-bites-the-dust.htm

      http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?aid=58126&dir=2016/february/26

      https://cecilspride.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/the-economics-of-poaching-trophy-and-canned-hunting/

      • Graeme Pollock

        Those that try defend the fact that Kenya lost 85% of its wildlife heritage after it closed hunting will always try find an explanation other than the obvious. But lets get some other facts straight :
        1. President Khama is a true conservationist and has only the concern for wildlife at heart.

        2. Dereck Joubert has commercial interests in land use changes in Botswana

        3. All hunting concessions within the Okavango delta already had photographic lodges in them before the hunting ban and the owners sold the concessions to the residing photographic companies prior to the land use changes , the marginal areas in the east all tried to get photo based tourism companies to set up camps to no success – it is these areas that are under debate about hunting as the best land use – the photographic industry has already stated publicly they have no interest in these low density areas ( but of considerable conservation value ).

        4. These areas have been placed out on public tender three years in a row and no photographic companies have bid on them as they are not suitable or viable. Which means no new jobs have been created since the closure of hunting whereas 2500 hunting dependent people have been affected by the closure.

        5. Prior to the hunting ban hunting companies invested millions in waterhole provision for wildlife , the result is that these areas had tens of thousands of elephants and thousands of buffalo – today after the closure and hunting companies withdrawl there are no buffalo and about 100 elephant. All other symbiotic species also disappearing .
        6. The government is establishing solar based waterholes to fill the void left – there were about 50 boreholes managed by the hunting companies.
        7. You seem to be OK justifying that the decline in wildlife in Kenya is due to human expansion ,poaching and corruption but dont draw this same conclusion for Mozambique and Tanzania – I have conducted safaris to both of these and can assure you your armchair observations are wrong.
        8. I am first and foremost a conservationist and secondly a hunter who believes in the scientifically proven fact that hunting is a major tool of nature conservation.
        9. Your reply is full of comparisons between apples and watermelons , you need to research scientific papers and journals published by Academic Institutions, Lion Aid and the like are biased towards fund raising and donations with a strong bias towards emotional arguments.
        10. The Botswana Government is a leading role model to the world on conservation and is committed to conservation, there is no doubt about that fact. The closure of hunting is adaptive management and is not cast in stone.
        11. At some stage the left wing and the right wing will come to realize they are both wings from the same bird called conservation and to soar they need to work and beat together not against one another – which is why poachers and corruption are wining this war.

        • Gordon Goldhaber

          There is no scientific evidence that suggests that Kenya’s hunting ban depleted it’s wildlife.

          Your arguments are weak, & lacking in solid-proof.

          You should look at the massive declines in wildlife in countries like Tanzania (65,000 elephants poached in 5 years), Mozambique (half their elephants poached in a few years), Zambia (massive loss of wildlife) and Zimbabwe – all countries where trophy hunters operate in droves.

          Trophy hunting is a commercial enterprise that “wants” to claim a conservation component but cannot deliver.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Gordon after 35 years of being in Nature Conservation , over a decade in formal conservation Natal Parks Board and Ezemvelo , I have learnt one harsh lesson , Wildlife is a sector that attracts armchair warriors who do very little research , come to conclusions based on coffee table books and disneyfied wildlife documentaries. They visit a spa/luxury lodge for a weekend get their information from a jeep jockey with two weeks training and come away as experts. On the other hand professional hunters are often from formal conservation institutions with many years experience in the field or a life time on farms , they confront poachers and anti hunters on a daily basis , cannot form a family but dedicate their lives to conservation only to get rediculed by grossly misinformed armchair conservationists with as much understanding of wildlife issues in africa as the average PH has in his pinky finger nail . Anti hunters are only second to poaching in their decimation of wildlife in Africa and their failure to grasp the value of working together to protect and conserva our wildlife will become humanities biggest shame , so I dont wish to change your biased misinformed opinion as my experience is the average anti hunter is only interested in their own opinion to the detriment of wildlife , I have served wildlife for 35 years as has many hunters and PH’s and hunters have funded most wildlife sanctuaries being established , so we can sleep well knowing we tried in vain against a tidal wave of misinformed opinionated anti hunters who have mostly destroyed every species in their home , country and continent and are now hell bent on telling us how to follow their sterling example .

          • Graeme Pollock

            Gordon and to mention you seem to think its OK that Kenya lost 70 % of its wildlife due to the closure of hunting ( you are wrong and suggest you contact Institute of Scientific studies Journal for the real facts that will give you a 85% figure) , you refer to Mozambique a country that suffered decades of civil war where the military fed troops by harvesting wildlife , a weak misinformed argument , as only the areas ( Niassa , Sabie Game Park Meramu are showing increases all funded by hunting ) The only countries where wildlife in particular elephant are stable are countries that allowed hunting , watch how in the next three years only Namibia with its strong hunting ethos will survive. In South Africa in 70’s there was an estimated 7-8 million head of wildlife , today on the back of hunters dollars there is an estimated wildlife population of over 20 million , more land in SA is under hunting management now than all the national parks – in other words more land is now available to biodiversity as against mono culture agriculture than ever before . When you see the white flag from hunters it will be the end of wild areas and wildlife in Africa .

          • Gordon Goldhaber

            Yeah, just like it was the end of Nepal’s wildlife. A country that now celebrates 3 years without poaching.

            Maybe you should stop pretending that hunting is the only answer to every problem. And maybe visit kenya for a change.

            Once again, your lack of facts and sources fails to validate your words.

            Just because one idiot says Botswana’s wildlife is on it’s way out doesn’t mean it actually is.

            And again, you limit your examples to “animal rightsists”. When clearly other people oppose it.

            If all African wildlife was dependant on trophy hunting, then why isnt the mountain gorilla or the african wild dog extinct?

            No answer? I thought so.

            The reason Lionaid banned you is merely because they see past your lies and propaganda.

            Thanks to Cecil, the public will no longer buy the hunters lies.

            Much how the roman catholic church didn’t hold back science, the hunting industry won’t hold me and fellow “real” conservationists back.

            You cannot persecute people if they oppose one thing. And let me tell you Graeme, opposition to hunting is rising. And no, wildlife will march on. No matter what lies, myths, outdated propaganda you post.

            Botswana remains the king of conservation in Africa. And real conservationists, including Dereck, will insure this.

            And by the way, why don’t you take Kenya’s situation from an actual Kenyan.

            https://kuapo.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/hunting-is-not-conservation-please-no-more-cecilthelion-bigtuskerelephant/

          • Graeme Pollock
        • Gordon Goldhaber

          A pest like you doesn’t know when to quit. You however, don’t scare me.

          I am very educated.

          How about you try not to be “one-sided”.

          You think just because i don’t believe in an urban myth means i’m uneducated, it doesn’t. It merely means i’m not gulible and don’t fall for hunters bullshit.

          Also, opposition to hunting insn’t limited to “animal rightsists”. There are respected conservationists who oppose it.

          Lionaid looked at your comment, amd I was told your a frusturated Botswana hunter who has turned into an unemployed whiney baby who will do anything to get people to believe in bullshit hunter propoganda.

          You fail to mention how kenya’s moratorium “alone” depleted it’s wildlife. While ignoring any success the country has. I’m pretty sure if Kenya was as bad as claimed. It wouldn’t have the 4th largest savanna elephant population or the third largest rhino population.

          Pretending that Kenya is the only country that has lost large amounts of wildlife while ignoring the losses in other countries.

          I don’t listen to hunters. Why? Because I know better.

          With your lacking in emperical evidence, why don’t you start out with saying “My unscientific propaganda based claims are – etc.

          Keep em coming Graeme, just because I don’t reply doesn’t mean i’m not entertained.

          • Graeme Pollock

            I was once a regular voice on Lion Aid – dispelling the mistruths and propaganda they spew but they banned me and blacklisted me as they did not want their members to be exposed to the truth , your and their greatest failure is that you are unaware that sometimes you are degrading and defaming people who have credibility in the non utilization sector – eg you mention Londolozi , what you fail to understand is that I worked there in 1980 when John Varty was actively hunting Sparta , I managed Mala Mala (Southern lodges) when they were hunting out of Trackers Camp and was a Habitat manger at Sabi Sabi when we hunted on Luke Bailes place Singita ( before they built lodges ) , I worked as a Wildlife Official when Phinda was established at the time the Tourism development specialist for Maputoland – Tembe Elephant Park Nudumo Game reserve , Kosi Bay , Was a park ranger in the Umfolozi Hluhluwe complex . I dont entertain you by providing the emperical and biological support to my view points because you need to educate yourself through research , your generation are the entitlement generation you feel entitled that I feed you our research and knowledge without getting your feet wet or your hands soiled . Once you have spent 1/1000 of the nights I have protecting african wildlife in conservation areas you will be tolerated otherwise you are just another weekend ignorant anti something you dont understand. The point is I love it when someone tries to sound like a expert or knowledgeable about something ( you mentioning Londolozi as an example ) that they have very little true knowledge about and worse no experience . In other words every time you make a ridiculous hypothetical statement on a topic or a place you have no experience or first hand knowledge about I will be there to set the facts straight , the loony tune leftists will come out supporting you ( a whole 5-6 of them ) but the majority of readers who can see through the junk once they get the truth in front of them will come to see you and your cronies for what they are , the true enemy of wildlife conservation.

          • Gordon Goldhaber

            What does hunting money “magically” do that ecotourism money doesn’t?

          • Graeme Pollock

            Conservation is about securing land for biodiversity , it is the number one reason behind most species becoming threatened or extinct , so as conservationists our main task is to secure contigous tracts of land, as islands of protected areas are of very little conservation value in the big picture . Where photographic tourism is the best land use and has secured the land for wildlife and conservation there is no need to increase its exploitation by either sector , however most of Africa is not conducive to photo based tourism. But can be used by managed hunting as hunters do not require abundant wildlife to enjoy their outdoor persuits . Thus the call for best land use .

            One of the many myths and misinformation distributed is the issue of benefits to communities from hunting – please look up the CAMPFIRE project – just one of the districts reported to the African Wildlife Consultative Forum that they have received over $650 000-00 from hunting , that the proceeds have provided benefits to over 750 000 people linked to the district including 1 million meals to children . This area is not conducive to photo based tourism , the community trust categoricaly stated that if they could not receive benefits from the elephants in the district they would eradicate them. This is conservation .

            It is wrong to view all of Africa as conducive to photo based tourism , there are enormous areas that are of great conservation value but little photo or similar use – or able to make maximum income to pay fro protection and keep agriculture at bay.

            Please look at Charlton and McCullum Safaris Web page to look at how hunting pays for extensive anti poaching in Zimbabawe , there are many similar web pages that will show you the amount of anti poaching work done by hunting companies , you may have heard of the father and son who were killed in Zimbabwe recently while assisting with anti poaching patrols in their private off time – both were active PH’s. Everyday in Africa many many PH’s put their lives in danger combating poachers a fact the anti hunting fraternity take for granted. As mentioned before huntng is a tool of conservation it is not the panacea to all problems but neither is ecotourism.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Please take a look at this web page on a hunting company and its anti poaching initiative
            http://www.dapuzim.com/DAPU-2015.pdf
            It should show once and for all show the investment and commitment made by hunting companies to anti poaching and the risk anti hunters place wildlife in when closing down hunting companies who are protecting wildlife , that is why I will continue to state that the second biggest threat to wildlife behind poaching is anti hunters as they simply seem oblivious to the damage they cause when they close hunting companies ability to fund conservation.

          • Graeme Pollock
          • Graeme Pollock
          • Graeme Pollock

            In response to comments on Lion Aid / Born Free / HSUS / PETA / please see

            http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520266269?ref_=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_y2SYwb0KNS97V&pldnSite=1

            Lion Aid banned me only to contain damage – they dont want their followers to be exposed to the truth or posted peer reviewed scientific papers dispelling their propaganda. Again if they were able to argue with facts and figures why ban me – rather out argue me – they could not did not and the best way to stop the truth coming out is close it down.

  • Schroederville

    OUTSTANDING article. BRILLIANT and well done. THANK you, Derek. I will be citing this article for a long time to come when arguing with pro-hunters about how much they “contribute” to conservation. Great stuff here. Save the animals!

  • Bruine

    Hunters can’t admit to the truth; they are a sub-species of the serial killer. They love to snuff life and take the proof home. Very sick individuals indeed and as a society we should be wary of them – with prejudice.

  • Lebo Molata

    12 wild dogs, 19 leopards, 3 cheetah, brown hyena, just to mention a few animals shot on one farm in southern Botswana. Where are the photographic safaris now?

    • Gordon Goldhaber

      Proof may I ask?

    • Gordon Goldhaber

      Sir you can’t expect us to believe that 19 leopards and 12 painted dogs were killed because of a ban on trophy hunting. There is also no proof that they were even killed at all. Tell me, if this is what happened, then why is there no report about it?

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    These hunters just don’t know when to quit.

    First of all, i’m f****ng sick of hunters calling me “uneducated” just because I take opposition to trophy hunting. I’ve talked to big cat, wildlife, etc. experts and gathered everything I need to know.

    Why on Earth would an apex predator like a lion need to be hunted to ensure it’s long term survival? Top predators manage themselves. I know because i’ve seen the wolves of Yellowstone. They’ve been left alone, and now there’s been a trophic cascade of the park.

    As for retaliatory killings increasing without a huntjng quota, please show me a publication on such a claim from a LEADING EXPERT. Then i’ll understand.

    On the case of elephant trophy hunting. How has it been of any help when desths noe exceede birth rates? Tanzania lost 60% of it’s elephants, which is an undeniable fact. Wheras poaching in Kenya has decreased by 80%.

    Speaking of which, biologists in Kenya have reported that high levels of corruption, poverty, domestic livestock, and poor manegement lead to a 70% loss in wildlife. A loss that has been, and is currently being reversed.

    So tell me, how “uneducated” do I sound now?

    • Graeme Pollock

      Read the following regarding the EU and Namibia and their opinion on hunting as a tool of conservation

      http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1411043/m/1551094912

      • Schroederville

        Disgusting, Graeme Pollack. Disgusting and underhanded. SCI is a bunch of rich boy scum.

        • Graeme Pollock

          Schroederville , Freud may have looked at your post above and ascertained , you dislike men , successful people who have become wealthy , and anybody who disagrees with your opinion even where scientific research disagrees with you, and you resort like a spoilt little child who is not getting their own way by insulting them .
          But just to clarify the thread is how the EU and Namibia responded to a call on the ban of importing trophies into the EU.

          • Schroederville

            HAHAHAHA! That’s rich. I LOVE men. Adore them and they adore me, by the way. Your rants about hunting don’t hold water. You are very active on this thread. So much so, that it must be that you are invested, with something to gain here, as either a guide, landowner or a trophy killer who wants to keep killing. I’m not spoilt. Far from it… and as for “getting my way”, my way is to save as many wild animals from people like you as possible.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Semi retired , with no financial interests in hunting any longer , I only worry about the decline in conservation due to misinformation and the destruction caused by weekend arm chair eco bandits, (sic) not warriors. The point is however SCI and the wealthy people you dislike so much have funded more conservation than all of the welfare (so called ) groups put together. Please visit Charlton and McCallum Safaris look at the work funded by this operation and Geoff Broom in Mozambique , then let me know your more informed thoughts. I am active on this thread as I know the parties involved and many of the responders , this happens when you invest 35 years of your life to conservation.

          • Schroederville

            Clever insults there, Graeme. You must be a conservative type who is probably against women having reproductive choice too. Probably going to vote for Trump, huh? No, SCI have NOT funded more than all the eco groups put together! You and all the other SCI proponents are nothing more than NRA bullies. The LIE about killing being conservation is patently untrue, no matter how many decades these groups have been shoving that propaganda down our throats. Now people are waking up. And me, uninformed? — How arrogant of you. Do not presume that my thoughts are uneducated, I am a conservationist who actually works in the field. I volunteer with our local wildlife rescue and we do a lot of work here, I have seen firsthand how it is for wildlife and where funding goes, I have been studying conservation for some time. My work is NOT “armchair” warrior status, and you presume a whole lot about people when you say those kinds of things. Again, an arrogant blowhardy fool’s endeavor to do that. People who are passionate about conservation and can see the benefits of limiting, (and hopefully ending) trophy killing are intelligent caring people, most of whom probably donate and/or volunteer. I give a large chunk of my money to conservation causes, and I am going to Africa later this year to work as well as to go on eco/photo-safari. You can brag about being older and therefore assuming you know more, but I am 52 years old, right behind you, and I have been around the block too. DO NOT ASSUME people are uneducated. If you think a hunting safari owner knows more about conservation than Dereck and Beverly Joubert than you are seriously touched in the head.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Well you got one thing right YES i endorse and support Donald Trump for president and fully support the NRA the rest of your rants are not worth responding to; simple extremest rhetoric

          • Schroederville

            Jesus Christ Almighty! You have just discredited yourself entirely. Any argument you have is null and void if you support that racist bigoted embarrassing pig of a man to be president of the free world. And the NRA? The NRA is a HATE group. LOOK at what just happened in Orlando.

          • Graeme Pollock

            Again the only hate speech here is yours . Your hate is directed at many many millions of everyday citizens because they disagree with your extremist views. Sad waste of energy but proof you can’t debate with nutters. But for the moderate balanced people please read below from IUCN

            COMMUNAL CONSERVANCIES IN NAMIBIA AND EFFECT OF CONSERVATION HUNTING.
            Case Study from IUCN April 2016.

            In the early 1990s, many residents of Namibian communal lands viewed wildlife as a detriment to their livelihoods because animals destroyed crops and water installations and killed or injured livestock and people. Today, 82 communal conservancies covering 162,033 sq km and home to more than 184,000 people are engaged in community-based conservation, including indigenous and tribal communities.
            Trophy hunting has underpinned Namibia’s successes in community-based natural resource management. Recent analysis indicates that if revenues from trophy hunting were lost, most conservancies would be unable to cover their operating costs – they would become unviable, and both wildlife populations and local benefits would decline dramatically (Naidoo et al., 2016; see Figure 4). Overall, conservancies generate around half their benefits (including cash income to individuals or the community, meat, and social benefits like schools and health clinics) from photographic tourism and half from hunting. Note much of this is reinvested into managing and protecting wildlife. Around half the conservancies gain their benefits solely from hunting, with most of the rest deriving part of their income from hunting alongside tourism. Only 12% specialise in tourism (Naidoo et al., 2016). Revenues from trophy hunting of 29 wildlife species on conservancies totaled US$1,671,379 in 2013. Five CITES-listed species—Elephant, Common Hippopotamus, Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra, Lion and Leopard—accounted for 63% of this total. For example, every time an elephant is harvested a community directly receives approximately US$20,000 in payment, plus approximately 3,000 kg of meat.
            Wildlife populations have shown dramatic increases since the beginning of the communal conservancy programme in Namibia. On communal lands in northeast Namibia, from 1994-2011, the Sable population increased from 724 to 1,474 and the common impala from 439 to 9,374. In the conservancy region of northwest Namibia, from the early 1980s to 2011, the threatened Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra population increased from less than 1,000 to an estimated 27,000, and the number of Black Rhino more than tripled, making it the largest free-roaming population in Africa (conservancies are unfenced). The growth of communal conservancies and protection offered by national parks has enabled elephants to increase their population from around 7,500 in 1995 to more than 20,000 today. The Kunene Conservancy’s Lion population grew from roughly 25 lions in 1995 to 150 today, and Namibia now has a large free-roaming Lion population outside of national parks (NACSO, 2015; C. Weaver (WWF Namibia), pers. comm.).

          • Graeme Pollock

            Blaming guns is like blaming cars for killing . More people die by cars knives medical negligence than by guns .google it. The fat food in fridges kill more people than guns. I left a rifle at a door the other day , over 50 people walked past it and it never killed one person. What even Donald Trump is against much to the horror of the Republicans’ is control over known FBI watch listed people. It’s criminals who kill not guns .

          • Graeme Pollock

            It is interesting that not one of the horrific mass shooters were a member of the NRA but it has been revealed every one of them in the USA belonged to the Democratic party ???

          • Schroederville

            Upon further digging into your fierce pro-killing comments on this thread I see you owned a consession, not just one, but several. NO WONDER you are such an advocate! You probably got rich on idiot American killers coming over to Africa to rape and decimate her wildlife. Pathetic. It is no wonder you so fiercly defend what made you wealthy and able to sit in your fat retirement chair and insult people around the world who care about Africa and her Crown Jewels, the wildlife. Deplorable. I will no longer listen to a word you say. You have shown who you really are.

          • Schroederville

            I LOVE men and men love me, believe me! HAHA!

  • Helena Frangogiannis

    Great answer!!

  • KGB

    THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY!

  • Raffi Lido

    Beautifully detailed and expressed.

  • Cottonwood

    I deeply appreciate this discussion. The only thing I would add is the fact that our world is crying out for a greatly increased level of compassion that extends to all living beings and to the Earth herself. In my view, trophy hunting represents the antithesis of comassion and is overdue for a complete phase-out.

  • Das

    Could one argue for hunting in the case of necessary culling for conservation management, when relocation is not viable as is the case in poorer conservancies? This and private game farms (emphasis on “game”), are the only two scenarios I see hunting as being an applicable outcome.

  • elleebee

    i have been around a long time – i am an elderly man who has visited the wild places for a long time. i am still unable to reconcile the thought process that would go into stalking and killing an elephant or lion “just for fun” it is a very primitive instinct which has no place in the modern world. well done to the Jouberts who have done so much to promote conservation through their work.

  • Sameer Karkal

    Perfect article for trophy hunters

  • Winfried Kaune

    Point 3 marks the difference! After a Photo is taken (with a tax), the animal lives for ??? years, each year has 365 days and a lot of further fotografers can take their picture and pax the tax. If a bullet is shot, the tax will be payed only once. By the way, I don´t have any common sense with quys, thinking they can doeverything they want do just by paying some money! Times of big white bwana are far gone !

  • Mike Gunn

    Great letter Dereck. In my new area, in four short years, the increase in my wildlife numbers is phenominal. The first elephant we saw here, the year before hunting stopped, scented us from about eight hundred meters, trumpited and bolted. They now stroll right past us. This applies to all the species here! The last year of hunting had game bolting at the very sight of a vehicle. This tells a story. I do believe that the boreholes that have been stripped of their pumps etc in the old hunting areas, should be re equipped with solar pumps and panels. This in order to keep our wildlife from congregating in to great a numbers, in areas of permanent water, during the winter months. I have had people tell me that this is unnatural! Well human encroachment has made the entire senario, unnatural, to a large extent.

    • Graeme Pollock

      Hi Mike , ?? Four years the elephant have settled ??. It took them 10 to react to hunting when it opened in 1996. Yes where hunters hunt wildlife the wildlife is certainly more naturally afraid of man the pinnacle predator. This is natural what is un-natural is for wildlife to loose their fear of man , to the extent observed where a leopard bite the arm of a jeep jockey in a photographic vehicle that pushed this limit , the photographic guide then drove over the leopard twice breaking its hips , a viral video .
      The government has started to re-equip boreholes in the old hunting blocks with solar pumps , but the resident wildlife have either died or moved as determined by an informal survey of all the old hunting blocks , the last three years has seen an unprecedented increase in reported human wildlife conflict due to migrating wildlife finding no water in the old hunting blocks and pushing through to community and farming areas searching for water.

      • Mike Gunn

        Hi Graeme. Believe me, the difference in the wildlife, particularly elephant behavior in my area, is chalk and cheese compared to four years ago. They have not lost their instinctive fear of man, but elephant particularly, very quickly learn where they are safe, particularly the breeding herds. In old Area 7 during the early eighties on the Kwaai River, been the boundary with Moremi, it took no time once elephant hunting was reopened for the elephant to return to the safety of the reserve. I would see sign in Area 7 but little else. One moonlight morning at about 4 a.m I did witness a breeding herd crossing the river back into Moremi, well before sunrise. Obviously this resulted in Moremi taking a pounding because of the number taking refuge there, while hunting clients found it differcult to find trophy Bulls to hunt in Area 7. Find a three year study conducted by the University of Kwa Zulu Natal. The argument that Pro Hunting is a way of reducing elephant numbers, is entirely false! The crazy number of elephant bulls that were been issued to the hunting companies, achieved nothing except to impact extremely negatively on the gene pool.
        Please let me know who conducted the informal survey of the old hunting blocks? It is imperative that water be pumped in the old hunting blocks in order to spread the populations but the overall result of the hunting ban, certainly has more positives than negatives. Regards Mike.

        • Graeme Pollock

          Hi Mike , thanks for the reply, discussing issues is always a healthy way to move forward . Can I comment on a few of your comments .
          You are correct hunting does not contribute to any meaningful population control in elephant in the Botswana situation . This is due to the fact that although the hunting assoc requested a non trophy and tuskless female quota but this was never entertained because it is illegal to hunt any female in Botswana , however we have also stated that hunting is not a tool of population control.
          As mentioned there was never any hunting of females so breeding herds were never affected by hunting , other than possibly where a hunter hunted a bull walking with females but I am sure you have observed that the big trophy bulls are never with herds but mostly found solitary or in small groups of bulls.
          It is interesting that you say hunting affected the gene pool of elephant as hunting only occurred from 1996 to 2013 ; and one of the most significant observations was that the average tusk weight from all harvested areas remained in the 52/54 pound range , but the number of very old and heavy tucked elephants being harvested was increasing , in fact bulls over the 100 pound range were only harvested in the last few years of hunting , indicating no affect in the gene pool, however as not enough time has passed with no studies on genetics other than that which Debbie Peak was conducting which preliminary results showed no impact on genetics.
          As to the suggestion that the hunting ban has more positive than negative needs to be studied as our information is different .
          As you know no new lodges have been developed in the old hunting blocks so new jobs have been created to replace the 2500 lost.
          As there is no water in the areas , thousands of elephants have disappeared from the concessions returning to the fragile over used permanent waters of the Okavango and Chobe , this increasing biomass on these systems.
          Almost all retailers in Maun have reported a slow down in the local economy , in fact if you just take Toyota Land Cruisers as one example , all hunting companies bought them locally so you could never walk into Ngami Toyota and see one on the floor there was a 6 month waiting period , today they stand on the floor in every configuration. Hunting companies sourced all their supplies locally .The boom in government expenditure has largely masked the affects of the closure but retailers have felt it and expressed it.
          So the three key points of economics , ecological and social impacts have all been negative with the closure of hunting .
          At the African Wildlife Consultative forum the DWNP presented the 2014 income received by CBNRM in the whole of Botswana , all based on non hunting income , it was less than the just one Zimbabwe community received from joint hunting operations . As you know communities are complaining all the time to the newspapers that their benefits have been hugely diminished now that hunting has closed , so the four pillars of wildlife conservation have all,been negatively affected by the closure.

  • Pingback: Debating Hunting – International Wildlife Bond()

  • Bev Reed (Ms Reed)

    In this age where the ‘wild’ is now managed, humans are in complete control of the wildlife. We say which wildlife or individual lives and dies, we manage, breed, rehabiltate conserve and protect only because we also poach, out compete, mismanage, abuse and kill. This wildlife, these sentient beings are at our mercy. Everyone, but especially those of us who are educated and have financial means, should at the very least acknowledge that fact. Like our pets we are responsible for their very lives, we have to ensure their lives are dignified.

    Emotional, logical, economical, even ecological are all human.

    It is a short step to see the elephant in the circus as sad instead of amusing, to see hunting as ridiculous rather than ego-boosting. Like a grown man torturing children just because he is big and they are small (while the women watch with no opinion of their own).

    It is 2016, there is no place for cruelty to people or animals.

    • Graeme Pollock

      This is the heart of our efforts , to keep Africa wild and not as portrayed on Animal Planet etc where you can walk with lions and elephants , and people who raise wild animals behind small fenced enclosures are praised and followed . Modern society thinks central park in New York is the outdoors and a farm the wild .
      Wild animals deserve dignity and to live a wild life.
      Anti hunters have only source of income = donations from people they can mislead to believe hunting is cruel and is destroying wildlife . They would not exist if there was no so called cause . So they invent a cause and spread misinformation against all science and research which is readily available on the web pages of the institutions mandated by all the worlds countries to conserve and protect wildlife , IUCN and CITIES to name the two biggest mandated by the most countries .
      Sadly this takes away the attention needed for real animal welfare issues.
      Anybody who has observed animal production and slaughter for human consumption would be acutely aware of welfare issues . A animal that is born wild and lives wild and is only harvested by a quick shot in its last years of life is way better off than any pen raised turkey/chicken/cow/pig/or sheep but its not glamorous to fight for these creatures welfare .

      • Schroederville

        You are referring to canned hunting. We do NOT support that either. Killing is killing and canned hunting is an even lower form of evil, depraved and pathetic, helpless animals, hand-raised and tame, often drugged to make it easier, they have no chance of escape, and shooting them is NOT “hunting”. These vile scum that do this should be very ashamed and embarrassed of themselves. No sport there, just shooting fish in a barrel for a very expensive fee to corrupt and morally void farm owners. Sickening to the core.

        Very presumptuous of you to assume that anti-hunters ONLY have ONE source of income: donations. Money comes from all over the place, Graeme. Donations add up. And we are not making up a cause, the cause exists without us. The cause is people killing animals for fun and “sport” and hanging them on their walls. Shameful, ugly, outdated, pathetic and no longer sustainable in today’s world.

        I agree with you that animals deserve dignity and a wild life. They absolutely do. And if you are talking about factory farming, I agree with you there, as well, but I do not eat meat or dairy or eggs or animal products, so I do not buy into that warped system and I am fighting for a better way there too.

        • Graeme Pollock

          Great if you can just channel this incredible energy and conviction for animal welfare into the appropriate direction I will be with you 100% .
          There is this incredible picture of two scenarios – one shows a man standing over a harvested old buck in the pristine wilderness with the words I would rather get my dinner here and in the next there is a man grabbing a chicken in a coop with thousands of hens all on top of one another – filled to the top with ill treated sick chickens and the words – than here.

          To me it sums it up.

          There is so much true cruelty out there from Whaling to clubbing seals to Tuna long lines , to ritual killing of domestic stock , to neglect of pets , thousands of domestic animals suffer in the slums of the world – this is where animal welfare is needed – not on the wild lands of Africa where animals live free and wild ( until the anti’s arrive) .

  • Graeme Pollock

    Much of the discussion has strayed from the core issue of the point regarding financial feasibility and sustainability of hunting . By now readers have been able to observe the plethora of cited peer reviewed scientific articles clearly supporting and proving that hunting conserves biodiversity and protects wildlife . It does not mean that one conservation strategy is better or contributes more to wildlife and habitat conservation than others, a combination of all fields is the best way forward.

    • Bundubele

      You forget integrity and sense of purpose. Gambling, prostitution, gun-running, illegal immigration and so-on are all extremely successful industries, yet their profitability is based on misery and exploiting it. Hone your conscience and respect the creation around you – it was designed to be enjoyed and managed for our delight.

      • Graeme Pollock

        Your two points are not part of the core issues of the thread , but to reply to your two points of purpose and integrity .
        The sport of hunting conservation is mostly administered or controlled via hunting clubs or associations all of which embrace both your points by a Code of Conduct ( integrity) and a mission statement (purpose ).
        Codes of conduct are aimed at ensuring that both the integrity of the environment and the behavior of hunters is maintained . Make no mistake exceptions will occur as in all endeavors throughout the world where humans are involved , but the intent is there.
        Mission statements set the purpose , which is always to protect and conserve the wildlife and environment.
        Your third one was a suggestion to focus my focus and conscious. I have a 35 year career in wildlife conservation , my boots are worn down from miles walked in wildlife conservation . Almost every dollar earned by me or my companies have gone back into wildlife conservation or animal husbandry and welfare. As you will find most hunters have done the same, unlike anti hunters , hunters are doers not talkers.

        • Bundubele

          You view life from a different perspective, that’s all. I understand what you are saying, but I personally don’t follow your lifestyle – it’s a sticky wicket you’r on and you keep having to face the bouncers and googlies with the sun in your eyes…..

          • Graeme Pollock

            Correct two different points of view. One based on science and research the other on Disneyland style sensational made for TV programs. The main difference is hunters don’t force their opinions on others. So although I understand how anti hunters are , in my opinion, misguided by sinister anti hunting evangelist’s and truly believe they are acting in the good of conservation, they sadly are not and in the end wildlife will suffer the unintended consequences.

          • Bundubele

            Sir, the only hope I have is you to have a Saul of Tarsus moment…You hit so hard with your bat you’re gonna break it and you might hurt an umpire! if you follow my threads they are my personal views based on sound knowledge that is taught worldwide. It is no secret and only unknown to those who haven’t bothered to do their research. I am not anti-hunting as you can see in my postings – there is a time and place for it – but I certainly don’t advocate it – although ‘sport’ hunting sickens me. Good day and I hope you find true contentment.

        • Schroederville

          Graeme, First off, don’t even dare to call it “hunting conservation”, the two words are opposites and have no business even being that close to one another in a sentence. Give up on that. It is KILLINg and it is propaganda to call hunting “conservation”. What a ridiculous crock! Hunters are really pushing that one, but it’s a LIE. While a portion of money raised may sometimes go toward conservation efforts, we have seen otherwise. I cite the report of a week ago by the U.S. Committee of Natural Resources, it’s called “Missing The Mark: African Trophy Hunting Fails To Show Consistent Conservation Benefits”. Here, let me link it for you:

          http://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Missing%20the%20Mark.pdf

          The FACTS prove otherwise, Graeme. Killing is not conservation.

          I have seen you, quite by accident, on facebook. You are a complete and total hunter supporter and you have made your money off of it, like a king on a throne of bones. You do more commenting via Disqus than most members. It is clear that you have your agenda and you are defending it fiercely. Hunters are doers? Oh, way to stereotype and generalize. Activists are also doers, as implied in the very root of the word activist. My money goes to wildlife conservation, (particularly for the African lion) nearly every extra dime I raise. I’d rather spend my money on saving wildlife than on any other endeavor, so I put my money where my mouth is. I am a doer and so are the other activists and TRUE conservationists that I personally know. We spend our weekends volunteering, raising funds, sending letters, doing anything to help. No, I am not a wealthy landowner, or a company owner like you are, but I am dedicated and active, I’m no armchair warrior. My boots are worn down from years of walking the walk too, Graeme.

          As far as hunting codes of conduct go… Exceptions occur? Hunting codes of conduct are violated so often that there is a stereotype of the classic “hunter”… and it’s not pretty. Uber wealthy, camo-wearing, macho, entitled bullies, who travel the world over to shoot at everything, the biggest and the best of the animals, to slaughter, butcher and hang on their walls as “proof” of their manhood, to get that SCI prize, because they cannot seem to prove it any other way. If even HALF of the illegal violations in codes of conduct were actually caught and reported it would be astonishing.

          Your 35 year career is in hunting, Graeme, not conservation. Call it what it really IS.

          • Graeme Pollock

            The IUCN , which is the world authority on conservation calls it Conservation Hunting, you and a hand full of misinformed misguided people may not call it that , but scientists do. Please see below

            COMMUNAL CONSERVANCIES IN NAMIBIA AND EFFECT OF CONSERVATION HUNTING.
            Case Study from IUCN April 2016.

            In the early 1990s, many residents of Namibian communal lands viewed wildlife as a detriment to their livelihoods because animals destroyed crops and water installations and killed or injured livestock and people. Today, 82 communal conservancies covering 162,033 sq km and home to more than 184,000 people are engaged in community-based conservation, including indigenous and tribal communities.
            Trophy hunting has underpinned Namibia’s successes in community-based natural resource management. Recent analysis indicates that if revenues from trophy hunting were lost, most conservancies would be unable to cover their operating costs – they would become unviable, and both wildlife populations and local benefits would decline dramatically (Naidoo et al., 2016; see Figure 4). Overall, conservancies generate around half their benefits (including cash income to individuals or the community, meat, and social benefits like schools and health clinics) from photographic tourism and half from hunting. Note much of this is reinvested into managing and protecting wildlife. Around half the conservancies gain their benefits solely from hunting, with most of the rest deriving part of their income from hunting alongside tourism. Only 12% specialise in tourism (Naidoo et al., 2016). Revenues from trophy hunting of 29 wildlife species on conservancies totaled US$1,671,379 in 2013. Five CITES-listed species—Elephant, Common Hippopotamus, Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra, Lion and Leopard—accounted for 63% of this total. For example, every time an elephant is harvested a community directly receives approximately US$20,000 in payment, plus approximately 3,000 kg of meat.
            Wildlife populations have shown dramatic increases since the beginning of the communal conservancy programme in Namibia. On communal lands in northeast Namibia, from 1994-2011, the Sable population increased from 724 to 1,474 and the common impala from 439 to 9,374. In the conservancy region of northwest Namibia, from the early 1980s to 2011, the threatened Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra population increased from less than 1,000 to an estimated 27,000, and the number of Black Rhino more than tripled, making it the largest free-roaming population in Africa (conservancies are unfenced). The growth of communal conservancies and protection offered by national parks has enabled elephants to increase their population from around 7,500 in 1995 to more than 20,000 today. The Kunene Conservancy’s Lion population grew from roughly 25 lions in 1995 to 150 today, and Namibia now has a large free-roaming Lion population outside of national parks (NACSO, 2015; C. Weaver (WWF Namibia), pers. comm.).

    • Schroederville
      • Graeme Pollock

        The first sentence of this report is self explanatory , cut and pasted here for clarity :

        NOTE: This report has not been officially adopted by the

        Committee on Natural Resources and may not

        necessarily reflect the views of its members

        Released: June 13, 2016

        This is not peer reviewed or published its a position paper by an individual

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    My note to all to all the pro-hunting and hunters on this page

    I don’t care what you call me, or what you think of me.

    All your name calling, lies, accusations and hate rhetoric mean nothing.

    Call me anything you want but it changes nothing. I am dedicated to
    eradicating the obscenity of trophy hunting worldwide. I equate the
    killing of elephants, big cats, rhinos, ETC. with ecological
    destruction.

    Taking the life of an endangered or threatened species is wrong
    and every fabricated justification the murderers or those who sympathize
    with murder post, does not change that fact.

    I see any attempt to justify any slaughter as an desperate,
    manipulative, editorial that is made up of lies by the hunting industry.

    For those who demand that i see this as conservation efforts, my answer is never. I only support compassionate conservation, methods that don’t require rich foreigners to proudly fondle carcasses that they brutally shot to death, all while calling themselves “conservationists”. Nor do I believe it is succeeding to save African elephants, rhinos or big cats from their spiral down to extinction.

    I reject all the pathetic attempts to castigate Kenya for wildlife loss under a no-hunting formula, as this theory is based on nothing more than mere speculation, and also fails to explain why Zambia, Tanzania, and Mozambique have lost large amounts of wildlife. Stop making false observations, It just illustrates how
    desperate and manipulative you are to defend the abomination you wrongly call a “conservation policy”.

    For those who say that trophy hunting is essential for livelihoods and
    economic income for communities, its been proven constantly that it’s
    not, 2-5% of income going back does not a livelihood make. If you
    dismiss these facts i just stated as false, It is meaningless to me, as you are impossible to reason with.

    Proof:
    http://www.ifaw.org/…/Ecolarge-2013-200m-question.pdf

    Not only that, but Selinda and Linyati, with their closure of hunting, saw wildlife populations successfully rebound.

    This is the reason Botswana shut down their hunting industry, and not only
    because of this. It’s also because they realized they have no need for
    it, because it’s 2016, not 1926.

    I know it is hard for people motivated by profit to understand how and why people can defend African wildlife without profit to themselves. The greedy are incapable of comprehending empathy and compassion.

    The murder of elephants for trophies across southern africa, like the murder of
    the dolphins in Taiji, is a crime against nature and a crime against
    wildlife and humanity. It is a savage, barbaric, horrifically cruel and
    bloody atrocity and it must not be allowed to continue in a civilized
    world.

    In short I who opposes death and who champions life am in opposition to those who condone and inflict death and disdain the miracle of life.

    Elephant, big cat, and rhino trophy hunting must and will be ended – that is my objective and I will not back down in the face of insults.

    • Graeme Pollock

      yawn , predictable ignorance

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    A villager in zimbabwe admitted that all he made from elephant hunting over the course of one year was $3.00.

    Zimbabwe’s people do not recieve the majority of money from trophy hunting, simply because most of it goes to government officials.

    Grame here has presented no evidence or articles for botswana’s alleged downfall.

    Trophy hunting –

    -never accounts for more than 0.27% of a country’s GDP

    -Doesn’t make up more than 1.8% of the total tourism revenue

    -never gives more than 5% of revenue to rural communities.

    If what grame said is true (which is highly dubious)
    Then Khama would’ve lifted the ban a long time ago. But most likely, grame is making the majority of what he said up, and has no physical evidence to support his claims.

    To avoid being one sided, however, Sankuyo is lobbying for an exemption for their community to hunt buffalo for food.

    However, upon seeing this, grame will resort to calling me uneducated or dumb to make himself sound smart. But it will only go to show how desperate he is to get people to believe him.

    Khama has said that hunting areas are now in the proccess of being converted. For those who say otherwise, I say look at Selinda and Linyati, both former hunting concessions, which now both have thriving wildlife populations.

    • Graeme Pollock

      Gordon , as you say you googled CAMPFIRE and came up with no back up to our claims that hunting benefits or feeds local people , I took the first link on the Campfire Google , opened it up cut and pasted the first few paragraphs , so crickey either you really cannot read or are just plain stupid as stupid is , so I cut and pasted it here for you and others : mmm makes you wonder about the figures you brand around versus USAID and IUCN . ( caught with your pants on fire to echo a very apt child chant )

      United States involvement

      The US federal government has invested resources in CAMPFIRE, principally through USAID.
      By 1997, $7 million had been donated to the programme. This support
      created controversy in US politics. CAMPFIRE leadership lobbied in favor
      of the legalization of the sustainable consumptive use of endangered species as a strategy to increase the value of their remaining populations. This position clashed with the majority preservationist, anti-hunting public sentiment in the US as well as national and international law, in particular CITES.[2]
      By 2014 the US stopped the importation of elephants into the US,
      halting much of the hunting carried out in CAMPFIRE communities by
      paying US citizens and apparently putting the program at risk.[3]

      Results

      During
      1989–2001, CAMPFIRE generated over US$20 million of transfers to the
      participating communities, 89% of which came from sport hunting. The
      scale of benefits varied greatly across districts, wards and households.
      Twelve of the 37 districts with authority to market wildlife produced
      97% of all CAMPFIRE revenues, reflecting the variability in wildlife
      resources and local institutional arrangements. The programme has been
      widely emulated in southern and eastern Africa. It has been estimated by
      the World Wildlife Fund that households participating in CAMPFIRE
      increased their incomes by 15-25%.[4]
      Between 1989 and 2006 the project generated US$30 million, of which
      approximately 52 percent was distributed to local communities to promote
      rural development projects. No location has benefited more
      substantially than the Masoka ward, which has used its revenue to
      improve the livelihoods of its rural residents by building a four-block
      primary school, a two-ward clinic, a grinding mill, and two hand-pumped
      boreholes, to name but a few. In addition, environmental benefits have
      been witnessed since CAMPFIRE’s inception; elephant numbers have
      increased, buffalo numbers are either stable or witnessing a slight
      decrease, and habitat loss has diminished, and in certain regions, even
      reversed. CAMPFIRE leadership also chose to invest communal development
      funds from tourism revenue to build a beer hall for local residents.[5]

      CAMPFIRE was effective by political events in Zimbabwe and a
      significant decline in tourism in the 2000s. It seems to have reemerged
      subsequently and maintains an active website.[6]
      Hunting for cash continued. The 2014 ban in importation of elephant
      parts into the US has led to a significant decline in revenues from
      hunting parties.[7]

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Also Graeme is lying,

    Zimbabwe villagers do not benefit from hunting.

    They even admit it.

    A village chief said that all he made from elephant hunting-for the entire year-was $3.00.

    He’s also lying about Botswana.

    Nature based tourism, according to a report, now makes up 12% of Botswana’s GDP. The economy is growing at a fast rate in that nation.

    Trophy hunting, as a way of maintaining biodiversity, has been tested and proven false in Botswana.

    • Graeme Pollock

      Gordon , you know as well as any person who takes the time to do any background reading that you are not very truthful or able to read , the links are posted in my posts . As to one chief in Zimbabwe ….. , wow , is all I can say and is the basis of your opinion or background – any fool can find one person opposed to anything in the world – self explanatory ?? . The cited 12 % GDP includes hunting revenues and game farming revenues as both are part of Nature based tourism and fall under the Ministry of Environment Wildlife and Tourism (MWET).
      If you read my comments : our President is a committed conservationist without equal on the continent, but I disagree with his advisors such as Mr Joubert which is the theme of this thread. But I dont need to discredit your ramblings and misinformation as any reasonable person can clearly see your agenda behind the mistruths you spread.

      Which is pronounced in your comments on the Linyanti and Selinda – if you read Dereck Jouberts article in the AirBotswana in flight magazine you will read how he himself tells about how the return of the flood waters ( Tectonic plate movement ) brought the wildlife back into these areas that had not received flood waters for over 28 years. He does later try to tie the wildlife return to the closure of hunting but he had already wrote the article on the Water of Life where he describes in detail the return of the flood waters and the subsequent return of the wildlife. Nice try Gordon but Like I say every time you tell those little lies I will hopefully be there to expose them.
      http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_informingdecisionsontrophyhuntingv1.pdf

      • Gordon Goldhaber

        Shut your mouth graeme and stop trying to pass yourself as a false conservationist!

        Do me a favor and kill yourself. Make the world a better place.

        I bet your an old deragged man jacking off in your mothers house who has nothing better to do than troll people with lies and hate rhetoric.

  • Simon Williamson

    Compare Namiabia to Botswana on wildlife management – no contest. Also read the latest report from the I.U.C.N. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_informingdecisionsontrophyhuntingv1.pdf

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Don’t believe another word graeme says, hes lying.

    Hes in it for the killing and for the money, nothing else

    He just wants to make money.

    He’s the ignorant one. He thinks just because he imagines some fame figures means hes automatically smarter than you. He’s an unemployed failure at life with no job, and living at his moms house.

    He should just give up his failed hunting fantasies. He gets some of them from the bible.

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    KEEP EM COMING GRAEME,

    I WON’T GET TIRED OF THIS

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Definition of Graeme pollack (noun) – unemployed former hunting idiot who spends most of his time nowadays on the internet spewing lies amd bullshit and expects people to believe him even though he’s an old derranged man who is verry bad at making up lies and hate rhetoric.

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme is an idiot

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme is an moron

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme has no life

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme is fighting a loosing battle

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme needs to get a life

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme thinks he’s smarter than everyone

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme thinks he preserves elephants when he contributes to their extinction.

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme is ignoring the plight of lions leopards and elephants

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Grame thinks hes right all the time

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme is a false conservationist

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme should just give up

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme needs to give up

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Grame might be retarded

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme doesn’t know when to quit.

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Graeme makes up imaginary figures and estimates that are not supported by science

    • Graeme Pollock

      Yawn yawn yawn yawn

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    The iucn is filled with bias and errors now that they’ve admitted dsc so thet outta be lying.

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Nature controls itself.

    African ecosystems regulate themselves as they’ve done for millions of years

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    They have no need for interference from middle-aged idiots like graeme

    • Graeme Pollock

      Yawn yawn yawn

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Stay off graeme

    • Graeme Pollock

      Yawn, yawn

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    And stay away from this site

  • Gordon Goldhaber

    Dereck joubert knows about botswana way more than no-life pollack does.

    • Graeme Pollock

      Yawn

  • Babette Lewis

    Wild animals are in the wild for a reason, they aren’t bothering you, you don’t need them for anything at all. So step back, take a deep breath and get the hell away from our wildlife!! Sick and perverted and ignorant, you’re in the 21st Century with animals going extinct because of jerks like you. Go away and play with yourself, that’s better than anything you could do outside, anywhere.

  • Schroederville

    http://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Missing%20the%20Mark.pdf Trophy killing does NOTHING to help wildlife. It is barbaric and sick, depraved and ugly. Only selfish blind cretins would do this to another sentient being.

  • Schroederville
  • Graeme Pollock

    Here are recent abstracts of recently published wildlife papers , this is the true source of information on African wildlife issues and not made for TV disneyfication or coffee table books written for commercial purposes . Please people the majority of so called welfare organizations are there to extract donations from well intended people , so they manipulate the truth to pull at your heart strings and pockets

  • Pingback: Masai Mara Musings | NJ Wight Photography()

  • Lisa Antell

    YES yes yes! I totally agree….whenever I hear the argument that the trophy hunting fees keep the land and animals viable and pay into the local economy, I want to scream back at them! LIVE animals and witnessing their fierce beauty in the WILD is what will keep those countries’ economies thriving….photo/safari tourism dollars will save the animals and the local peoples!! Very little to none of the trophy hunting fees filter down to local economies and people…..and much more education and increased awareness of the beauty and lives of wild animals will save them ultimately. NO TO TROHPY HUNTING FOREVER.

    • Bundubele

      Largely agree…but don’y you mean TROPHY (without being pedantic)

  • Save Africa

    Well said…Photo safaris bring in more income than hunting safaris.. Nothing preservers nature but itself. I’m so furious with Trophy Hunters making up stories as they go along about how hunting an animal actually saves that specie. As this video plays out you will see that these lullabies stories they tell you are ignorant and ridiculous. And are not convincing

    Taking down an animal, does not repopulate that animal…tell me please how that happen’s? There are say, 50 wolves left. 10 hunters go in and kill 10 wolves. There are now 40 left..How do they even know if they are killing an impregnated female, or one searching for food to bring back food to her pups. it t would take days of following her to figure that out.

    These lands purchased by hunters are just out for the profit, by excepting money these wealthy white folk offer “I’m white” so I ‘m not pointing fingers at anyone..
    With the upcoming mass extinction around 2020 will kill off many species of animals.. We have to find away to disallow these land owners the right to offer hunting packages, which offer numerous animals to be taken, including the big 5, soon to include our beloved giraffe. I’ve included 1 must see video which proves that nature takes care of it’s self. And a landowners packages which includes of the big 5.

    video https://www.facebook.com/ourafricananimals/

    hunting packages http://www.africanskyhunting.co.za/africanhuntingpackages-dangerous.html

  • Jane of the Kalahari

    Would love it if there were references to the reports quoted by Dereck here. Africa Geographic or Dereck – can you provide any of these please? I’ve looked online and cannot find any available reports with the numbers quoted and the link following the quote about lions being worth US$2 million alive rather than $15,000 dead actually doesn’t quote those figures, but is rather a letter from Richard Branson. Some evidence to back up the figures claimed here would be great if you can provide it. Cheers.

    • Phillip L

      I do not know which sources Dereck used, but his findings are corroborated by studies at the NWU, in which the monetary value of sightings of big 5 species is determined. The article can be found at http://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC145352 (I don’t know if it is accessible without institutional access), but its findings are summarized here as well: http://www.nwu.ac.za/content/nwu-study-determines-commercial-value-big-five-potchefstroom-campus-2012

    • Save Africa

      I don’t remember quite which articles I got this information but it has been calculated over time that it is true. I’ve also read an article from a hunters forum that the hunters lodges never fill in fact, they only get a few clients during hunting season. Maybe the numbers are just a guess but the comparison between the to is an accurate guess and I can assure you that photo tourism does brings in much more than hunter do…At this point because of the declination of population of many species including the giraffe hunting, should be outloud. There is the talk by scientists and biologists predict a 6th mass extinction, We will lose most of those animals anyway.

  • Esme’ Blair

    Thank you Dereck. I have always said…the hunting fraternity need to show open books in its claim that it protects and serves surrounding communities. Let’s see their transparency. Modimole, North of Pretoria going to the Waterberg….I saw hunting guides with palatial homes on the golf course, fences and double fencing that looked like Alcatraz on game farms. One of our foreign visitors asked to leave as she said it felt like they were in a prison. The world hss changed people dont see hunting ascethical. Hunters and guides need to understand this. South Africa needs to stop farming animals for profit.

  • Hefty McNuggets

    Doesn’t take a genius to understand that more money is made off an animal if it lives. I mean, after all, it’s still there for more people to take pictures of it you don’t kill it. And the offspring it produces as well. Many more people want to take photo safaris than they want to go trophy hunting. Trophy hunting is for idiots who want to brag amongst other idiots at how tough they are when in reality they’re nothing but losers.

  • Well argued Dereck. The rich boys clubs, like Safari Club International, beat the conservation drum but when you look at their global impact on biodiversity (not just the hunting) by its members, they are the primary economic drivers of the current global extinction crisis (deforestation, global warming etc.). However, we need to somehow extend your argument to so called fringe areas that are not aesthetically suitable to photographic safaris. It works for places like Selinda, the Okavango etc, but not so much for the great swathes of monotypic veld e.g. mopane and kalahari apple leaf biomes. It is proving very difficult for photographic companies, Great Plains included, to lease these enormous tracts of land because the economic numbers cannot stack up. Photographic benefits are not reaching the communities bordering these areas resulting in a considerable spike in bushmeat poaching and cattlepost expansion. I hate to add grist to the hunters’ mill, but we must not ignore these important wildlife repositories that may be facing a bigger, unquantifiable, threat than they did before. I would like to see these areas incorporated under state protection (forest/game reserves and National Parks) with a substantial social benefit being paid by government to the surrounding communities.

  • Anthony Outram

    What you have failed to mention in this rebuttal (a highly researched and well thought through one albeit) was what the economic input into privatised hunting concessions has on the ecosystem of said concessions, in particular, the populations of certain species that would otherwise be under serious threat. One of the main arguments for privatisation of hunting concessions is that the monetary remuneration of animals shot is applied in areas where it is actually required, I.e the funds end up in maintaining a healthy population of predators and prey alike, rather than ending up in corrupt politicians pockets. There are numerous examples of where national parks run by governmental wildlife organisations have failed, this argument is for another day perhaps, but to illustrate my point- look at the decline of specimen elephants (the Tuskers) in sub Saharan Africa over the past 50 years. Many of the national parks are poorly managed and the incentives for the local populations to sustain their local wildlife habitats are simply not strong enough to compete with the rewards offered by poaching syndicates. I’m not trying to sway favour in the way of hunting, as I myself am not a hunter, but there is evidence to support its sustainability… don’t believe me? Research South African wildlife statistics from the pre hunting era, to current stats, something must be working?

  • IUCN SULi

    This argument has serious weaknesses, both in its discussion of the relative merits of hunting- vs photo-tourism and, more importantly, how it frames the question facing decisionmakers around these options.

    It correctly notes that in very high potential wildlife tourism areas, non-consumptive tourism clearly is a better option and out-competes trophy hunting in economic terms. This is a point often overlooked in the arguments of the hunting sector. This has been found in Namibia, for example, where phototourism generates greater economic returns than hunting for some (not all) communal conservancies, and overall generates overall a greater share of benefits for communities than hunting. Note that the economics of the two are not static, and in some areas (e.g. some parts of Tanzania), tourism has gradually become more profitable and competitive over a larger area of state and communal land in recent decades (notwithstanding the governance issues that limit landholders’ actual returns from either hunting or phototourism in this and other countries). Of course, economic drivers can easily move the other way too – political instability in Zimbabwe over recent decades caused tourism to crash, while hunting tourists continued to visit.

    However, a critical point overlooked by Mr Joubert is that the economic advantage of tourism is limited to an uncertain but highly limited proportion of the wildlife area in sub-Saharan Africa. This applies primarily to up market photo-tourism camps that are located within highly protected areas, such as national parks or private conservation areas, with particularly attractive features, such as exceptionally scenic landscapes. Even in many or most of these areas tourism is not economically viable, and flourishes only due to external philanthropic investment. Importantly, there are vast areas of the conservation estate with very low potential for photo-tourism, due to lack of infrastructure, boring/inhospitable topography (e.g. miles of flat, featureless scrub), low or unremarkable densities of wildlife, etc. In these areas hunting can generate revenues that tourism cannot, and hunting is much more flexible and resilient to political turmoil. One particular dynamic left out of Mr Joubert’s analysis is that only rarely are high value tourism areas located in the multiple use areas where communities also make their living, such as Game Management Areas, Wildlife Management Areas, Forest Areas or Safari Areas. Here management regimes often have to deal with conflicting human and livestock land use practices. High end photo-tourism camps are shielded from these influences. But it is in these areas that hunting operations are generally to be found and have to bear the costs of conserving the wildlife. Further, even where photo-tourism could be viable, wildlife is often highly depleted, and hunting can generate revenue for conservation from these populations and allow them to recover to the point where photo-tourism becomes viable. This has been the trajectory followed by a number of communal conservancies in Namibia.

    More broadly and more importantly, however, it is very disappointing to see here the perpetuation of an unproductive and polarised debate that is a distraction from the real conservation issues. In reality, some areas are well suited to photo-tourism and can generate meaningful revenues from it alone. Some have virtually no tourism potential and must rely on hunting if wildlife is to remain a competitive land use against the ever more intense pressures of agriculture and encroachment. In many areas, both photo-and hunting-tourism are viable and complementary land uses, and indeed both may be necessary to make wildlife competitive (as in many communal conservancies in Namibia – see Naidoo et al 2016). It is clearly possible to first take thousands of photographs of a lion, for example, and then raise additional income for conservation and communities through trophy hunting at the end of the animal’s natural life (e.g. a hunter removes an old male lion instead of it being killed by another lion). Communities also often want the tangible benefits of meat. There is a critical role for both hunting and tourism.

    As this unproductive debate rages on, Rome is burning. Across Africa, wildlife is rapidly being displaced by livestock or depleted by uncontrolled illegal hunting. The real conflict is between developing economically viable enterprises on natural habitats that derive their value from wild species versus conversion of these habitats to crops and livestock. This is the fight we are losing in most countries, including very badly in some countries that rely solely on photo-tourism.

    We urge people involved in this discussion to recognise the realities of this debate and strive to maximise the conservation effectiveness of hunting, tourism, and other approaches according to local context. While both hunting and photo tourism have shown outstanding successes in conserving wildlife in certain cases, neither is a panacea. Both have impacts, and there are many examples of each failing to live up to its potential for conservation – as well as failing to adequately recognise the rights of and to return adequate benefits to the local communities who live with wildlife and who will largely determine its fate. We call on both sides in this debate to enter a more constructive discussion: how can we realistically support a future where many and varied incentives encourage landholders to tolerate, steward and protect wildlife on their lands? How can we move toward a future where African societies and rural communities will be willing to invest the vast amount of land and revenue needed to protect and conserve wildlife?

    Let’s start with a cease-fire between the tourism and hunting factions, in order to work collectively to deal with the real crisis. Without this, we risk a future where there is no wildlife left outside of protected areas to conserve.

    • Rienie Denner

      Great! Thanks IUCN SULi for putting the whole issue in perspective! We are sick and tired of one-sided views forced down our throats by hard-core animal rightists like Dereck Joubert!

    • Save Africa

      I have a couple of questions for you. One why is it necessary to ‘Kill” an animal?? If hewe hunters could donate money and leave an animals life intact. It’s all about the trophy, kind of like a kid winning a toy at the carnival. These people are purely driven by adrenalin, greed, and ego. You keep talking about economical revenue, but fees that go back into conservation can be as low as 3 percent and money doesn’t trickle down to poor villages. In Zimbabwe, one of the news channels interviewed a villager and he said they don’t see a dime of that money and yes, they were suppose to get all funds from Trophy Hunting. So, who is really benifiting from this money?? We really can’t afford to lose any more lions, elephants, rhinos leopards,and, yes, giraffes. they are on the silent endangered specie list.

      Taking a life is not a privilege and these animals are not the property of these rich land owners. A life is a life. Animals are living non human sentient with a nervous system scientifically capable of feeling pain and experiencing other emotions including suffering and anguish, Elephants alone have been proven to have long term memory, more in which a human has, and they never forget.

      The whole world works around an ecosystem and these individuals say the lion. play a key role in the food chain by helping to control the herbivore population. If the population of herbivore is not regulated, there would be an increase of competition among them would cause some to go extinct and reduce biodiversity.
      As far as disease, Lions prey mainly on herd animals. Nature comes to play as lions take down the weakest of the herd. This keeps the herd population resilient and healthy. If lions did not exist, there would be a symbiotic relationship between parasites and herd animals. This way, parasites could increase and spread throughout the herd, resulting in fewer healthy animals.

      As or the elephant. they are among the most intelligent of the creatures with whom we share the planet, with complex consciousnesses that are capable of strong emotions. They are also keystone species, playing an important role in maintaining the biodiversity of the ecosystems in which they live. During the dry season, they use their tusks to dig for water. This not only allows the elephants to survive in dry environments and when droughts strike, but also provides water for other animals that share harsh habitats. When forest elephants eat, they create gaps in the vegetation. These gaps allow new plants to grow and create pathways for other smaller animals to use. Wherever they live, elephants leave dung that is full of seeds from the many plants they eat. When this dung is deposited the seeds are sown and grow into new grasses, bushes and trees, boosting the health of the savannah ecosystem. So these animals are extremely important to our ecosystem. Hunters disrupt this and by the year 2050, these animals could parish. It’s time to stop this..All this is, is a sickness, a hobby. Are we willing to risk this for them?? These people trying to fulfill an ego they have Gaining dominance and conquer, taking down a large dangerous animal. and nothing more.. And may I conclude. If hunters are just killing old lions, then why did a family of hunters go after a 6 year old collared lion. “Xanda” son of Cecil???

  • Piet Grobler

    Mr Joubert, why the rant about hunting. You successfully stopped hunting in Botswana. I fail to understand why now. Why are you not stopping trucks on the highways as well. You must know that trucks are killing more elephant on Botswana’s roads than hunters. You see everything from you own perspective only and that is generating money from the tourism company in where you yourself and Pres Ian Khama own shares. Good for you. Your comp. will prosper and the others will perish. That is obvious the plan while you hide behind your image as a decorated Nat Geo Photographer and film maker. All the hunters you despise adores your films as well and not because they are looking at possible “prey”. They love nature as well, although it will be impossible for you to fathom.

    • Save Africa

      lol!!! No idea what you’re talking about..Try reading up on the problems instead of hunting instead of just believing that hunting is good. What about the numbers of species dropping:? I suppose that you have no concern about that… This is article written by the government in Kenya..this is a comment made by him….Today i had a meeting with senior Kenya wildlife service in Tsavo west and agreed to install solar pump to an existing borehole which now is not operating for the generator they used is broken down and it is expensive running with fuel every moment. By 10 days time we should have it running and this will fill more than 6 waterholes daily. Finally, my driver will be stationed in Tsavo west with our ” WATER IS LIFE TRUCK” delivery water everyday to waterholes. It has been a very successful day and thank you everyone for your support!! Look at this which is already installed in Tsavo, we are doing the same. I must say that the military is helping hand and hand

      One factor that has convinced African governments to take strong measures to protect elephants is the rising importance of the tourist trade to their economies. Kenya alone receives $50 million a year from tourists coming to see elephants. The national parks bring in much-needed income, and tourism is a source of income that can continue into the future because it does not deplete wildlife populations.

      • Piet Grobler

        Save Africa, you have a point, but sadly you missed the point under discussion. Hunters do take animals out of the natural population. Far less than the yearly births. Mostly old male animals that had spread their genes through the population of their species in their area. Almost 100% legally, on permits issued by Wildlife Authorities. What I want to hear from you, why then the decline in numbers. Something seriously wrong in your reasoning that hunting is to blame. And by stopping hunting you will create a vacuum of people looking after game. Ask the Authorities in Botswana as well as Dereck Joubert if it is true that more Elephants were poached in the last year than in the last 10 years of hunting. Conservation Authorities are finding more and more carcasses in the bush every week and complain that the areas is too vast to patrol successfully. Rethink your strategy of providing water to waterholes as that is, to a poacher, the same as a Shopping Mall. Get rid of your crusade to save Wildlife and get to know everybody involved. Crusaders, poachers, bunny- and tree huggers, communities, hunters, Trophy hunters, tourism companies and all organisations with a stake in African Wildlife. You can not afford to further alienate the hunting fraternity as they have a stake as well and will protect it. Leave your emotions by the wayside as it is no longer necessary except in raising money from donors.

  • Richard Sowry

    IUCN SULi hits the nail on the head ! Rome is burning and we need both Photographic and Hunting Tourism to provide benefits from Wildlife if are going to stand a chance of surviving the present onslaught Africa’s Wildlife
    The fact of the matter is, there are numerous examples of both good and bad huntiing and photographic safari practices out there. How can one differentiate between a lodge that draws millions of liters from it boreholes per month and the hunting of a prime pride male male lion. Both are irresponsible and unsustainable.
    So how should a Concerned Conservation Minded person decsrimate bewteen right and wrong practices that are said to be justified under the broad banner of Conservation ?
    Simply, the following basic criteria should be use:
    1. Sustainability – is the offtake / utilization sustainable, as well as whether the activity/ experience sustainable. Wild experiences keep the tourist coming back, while Canned experience do not.
    2. Responsible Practice – this touches on on the ethics of the practice, but ethics are a product of cultural background and are very different across the board so the term responsible is easier to describe and achieve. Examples here could be fair chase vs canned hunting practices and in the photographic context the level off-road driving associated with the up-market photographic safaris.
    3. Does the safari operation generate meaningful benefit , and is the revenue responsible spent. Priority should first be in taking care of the conservation estate to ensure that it keeps producing. Examples of this are the upkeep of roads ensuring they do not become a source of uncontrolled soil erosion and having effective counter poaching and security operations. Next priority should be issues around social sustainability within the local communities and initiatives around this.
    The 3 issues mentioned above form the basic departure point for good decision making with regard to resource management. Both forms of tourism practice need to develop sustainable and responsible guidelines for their operations and both need to be kept accountable.

Black Rhino
Wildshot Safari
Africa Geographic