Are we all asleep?

Old Jul 19th, 2007, 04:26 AM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are we all asleep?

(sorry for any spelling mistakes, not a native English speaker)

Has anyone read the article with Chris Mercer on canned hunting?

Read it here: http://safaritalk.net/index.php?showtopic=429

I find it rather strange that nobody actually reacted (yet) to this interview. While it is actually a real “slap in the face”. At least to me. A wake up call.

Some things I now am thinking about:

1) WWF are PRO hunting??? I feel incredibly stupid at this point. On my site, I currently give away all my wildlife photographs for free, to those who make a donation to that very WWF. I feel so bad at the moment, you wouldn’t believe it. The very animals I try to get protected …in the hands of hunters? But how was I supposed to know?! I mean; there’s a WWF commercial on NatGeo and AnimalPlanet every 15 minutes. I thought they were NUMBER ONE when it comes to wildlife protection. Seems like the last fortresses of Eco-tourist and nature lovers are falling, one by one. Infiltrated by big firms with agendas that directly oppose those of us. I actually didn’t really mind as long as it was VISIBLE (the oil firm commercials come to mind, or that “sponsored by Toyota” stuff), but now it’s also INVISIBLE. I mean: WWF!? What remains now? WSPA? Are any of those organizations still trustworthy? How is one to know which one?


2) The hunting industry controls conservation in South Africa??? This means all national parks are just façades of some sort. Meant for stocking wild animals or something? I mean; all we hear these days is “taking down fences”, “joining parks”, “wildlife corridors” …and it’s all to get the animals to wander out of the park so they can shoot them? Or at least that’s what the article says. Is there not ONE organization that raises a voice in concern?


3) I have an “African Geographic” subscription, and a “African birds & birding” one too. Articles are sometimes “good news” (like the wildlife corridors –type of articles), some are about conservation efforts, some are about a particular animal or park. But not that many are really bad news. That is to say; sometimes an opinion is voiced, and a lot of times they just mention the deterioration of wildlife in general, but not many articles really go in-depth on a specific problem, pinpointing the culprits.
This may be a choice made by the magazine, but I just realized too; those magazines are full of info on the conservation efforts made by wealthy families (Oppenheimer&Son who open private reserves or stuff like that, the “Birding Routes” project by De Beers, etc…). If I add that up with what is said in that article (that the hunting industry controls the parks, and that the worst offenders are parks like Madikwe etc…), then I can easily come to the conclusion: rich families = the ones who control the reserves = the hunters = the ones who seem to have a great influence in those magazines.
In other words: these magazines look like the written equivalent of the TV channels mentioned earlier, having the same “infiltration” problems. Or is my conclusion not correct? What is one to do here? End the subscription? And are there alternatives? Or are there none, because there’s too much money involved (money received from advertising by those “infiltrators”)?

I’m actually pretty pissed at this moment. I don’t know who or what to believe anymore. Either I have trouble waking up (read: don’t want to), or that article is over-exaggerating, or??? I also, as a safari traveler, have a feeling of having been used by the hunting industry as “an additional means of profit from wildlife”.

What are you all thinking about this?

I think we should discuss this (no matter what forum). Perhaps raise our voices. Perhaps even form an organization that that warns uninformed tourists or something (as a means of pressure on the hunting industry).

Or are we all just here to post cheerful messages about our safaris?

J.
pixelpower is offline  
Old Jul 19th, 2007, 09:27 AM
  #2  
skimmer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Don't expect too much ...
 
Old Jul 19th, 2007, 10:32 AM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Welcome to the real world. If looking at the documents published by www.inbo.be hunting is also well organized in Flemish forests...
nyama is offline  
Old Jul 19th, 2007, 02:49 PM
  #4  
skimmer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Nyama,

A comment from you in another thread:

Interesting what Mr. Norton-Griffiths says in this article. Each time we have this hunting debate on Fodors, it's less about what hunting can contribute to conservation but more about the ethics of trophy hunting. For conservation it's completely irrevelant what we think about the trophy hunter - what counts is the money that he generates, money which helps to protect habitats and wildlife. A good example is Kafue in Zambia where you have the best game sightings in hunting concessions outside the park than in the park itself. I don't like trophy hunting, but important for me are results for conservation, and not emotions.

Just curious to know what trophy hunting of lions means for the conservation of that species?










 
Old Jul 19th, 2007, 03:27 PM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's another comment I posted some time ago:

"For considerable parts of Africa, the only realistic solution [for protecting big cats] is 'consumptive utilisation' - hunting. As difficult as it is for me to accept that hunting a lion or a leopard can be considered sport, there is no doubt that hunting makes a substantial contribution to protecting African wilderness."
Luke Hunter, WCS, "Conservation: the future of Africa's cats" in "Cats of Africa", 2005

Maybe this book gives you a good start. As an enthusiastic wildlife photographer you certainly will like the pictures.
nyama is offline  
Old Jul 19th, 2007, 05:47 PM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I guess that's exactly the reason why so many lion research projects are sponsored by the hunting industry.
nyama is offline  
Old Jul 19th, 2007, 06:27 PM
  #7  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I won't make any judgements on any of this- as i don't know enough....

But, just want to thank safaritalk for posting the various interviews. My favourite ones are the cheetah conservation interviews on their website.....

Rgds,
Hari
HariS is offline  
Old Jul 19th, 2007, 09:30 PM
  #8  
skimmer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lion hunting is also problematic. There are now very good data available showing that the impacts of shooting male lions has ripple effects throughout the larger population, a result chiefly of accelerating the natural turnover rate of pride males and therefore, of infanticide—the killing of unrelated cubs when new males take over a pride. Both Craig Packer’s team working with his long-term dataset from the Serengeti, and David Macdonald and Andy Loveridge working in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park have produced very strong arguments for either reducing hunting quotas or limiting the age of males which can legally be shot.

I am not opposed to trophy hunting but I feel strongly that it must be based on good science and it must be sustainable. With few exceptions, that rarely happens in the case of hunting large cats.


From an interview with Luke Hunter in 2007.


For me it's like the war against Iraq - everyone with common sense knew it was the wrong thing to do - but they did and see where they are now.

Is the Middle East become more democratic like some people dreamt of?
Is the world become a more safer place after finding those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

You can answer for yourself.

But I guess like Pixelpower stated it's much more easy to post those cheerful messages.

So keep them coming.
 
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 01:35 AM
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nyama,

About Flanders: there are no endangered species in Belgium, nor are there real "wild "areas. The comparison is useless, and I don't know why you bring this up. We screwed up our nature long ago. But it's not because we did it that people have to make the same mistale in Africa, right?

Actually, the biggest point I was trying to make here is about WWF. I can imagine there are huge amounts of people anti-hunting who support WWF!
pixelpower is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 02:02 AM
  #10  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Skimmer,

I don't expect much. I know; plenty of people here probably cannot be bothered by all this.

I know I may offend some by saying this but... people who book these top-lodges more often than not seem only interested in THEIR experience. As long as there's plenty of wildlife in their expensive concession, and as long as there's a jacuzzi in the room etc... they don't seem to care much for what happens out of the boundaries of their concession.

Also, lots of people here are involved in one way or another in the travel industry and such talk gets in the way of business. Such matters make them feel uncomfortable...

pixelpower is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 04:29 AM
  #11  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Skimmer, if you ban hunting what happens to the wildlife in all these hunting concessions? That's a simple question for your common sense. And I'm not speaking about these small game farms in South Africa, a country with a highly developed infrastructure, I'm speaking about all these large remote tracts of land which rarely see any photo tourist, for instance in Botswana, Zambia, Tanzania, Mozambique. Do you have an answer? You posted my quote, maybe you also should have posted some of Pred's explanations from that Kenya thread. Relying on "good weather" photo tourism? If looking at the current situation in Zimbabwe, especially all those remaining conservancies in the lowveld, I doubt that this is a reliable solution. And even if you are able to open all these remote areas for photo tourism, have you ever spend a thought on the role of hunting in such a development process? Currently Niassa in Moz is a good case study... So why hunting lions? That's quite simple - you can't get the revenue to run all these operations and protect these areas if you just offer impalas. In this regard hunters and photo tourists have much in common. Summary: even now hunting does a lot for conservation - if you put it under strict rules you get an even much stronger conservation tool.

pixelpower, I'm not living so far away from Flanders, and we also don't have "real wild" areas in my country (although we have a lot endangered species) but most conservationists regard hunting in our forests as an important conservation tool, and there are renowned voices who even demand more hunting to support biological diversity. I doubt that the situation in Flanders is different, the science of conservation is the same all around the world. That was my point.
nyama is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 04:35 AM
  #12  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So what you're saying is that even if it is poorly managed and the benefits aren't being seen, it's a good thing.

Doesn't make much sense to me.
divewop is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 05:18 AM
  #13  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
divewop, do you know the story of Niassa? Do you know all these remote areas? Have you ever been there, for instance Rungwa? Do you know the current situation in Zimbabwe and the occupancies of hunting and photographic camps, especially in the south-western part of the country? Just closing eyes and saying 'I see nothing' doesn't help much. And I find it extremely unfair against those people who are trying to protect nature, even if you don't like the way how they afford this.
nyama is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 05:36 AM
  #14  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
here is a link (the one in the article didn't work) to the reserves where they say hunting is allowed: http://www.cannedlion.co.za/ethical-...meandshame.htm

He makes a good point that overpopulation is driving the problem, when he mentions the "nihilistic" lifestyles of the people in and around the parks and reserves destroying their resource base. The problem is far bigger than trophy hunting, since poverty and overpopulation are keeping the countries mentioned from developing large, interconnected, undisturbed, hunting free game reserves/wilderness areas.
The human animal has exceeded earth's carrying capacity for it, and the ramifications are huge and everywhere. Carrying capacity is a key ecological term - Webster's defines it as "the maximum population (as of deer) that an area will support without undergoing deterioration". We have exceeded ours, so we see here the results.
Momliz is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 05:58 AM
  #15  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nyama-
Please tell me, what is wrong with wanting answers to our concerns?

You have quoted a professional who works with the WCS and the big cats in Africa and he himself states "trophy" hunting is poorly managed and hunting lions has proven to be problematic. And we know he isn't the only conservationist who feels that way.

If you want to accuse me of turning a blind eye to "situations" maybe you'd better open yours.

Like others I'm looking for the rationalization and justification in continuing this so-called "sport" if it's not being managed well and the pros aren't outweighing the cons.

divewop is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 06:01 AM
  #16  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And for those interested, here is Luke Hunter's article. I had posted it yesterday but because I quoted half of it in my post, they deleted it. <Sigh>


http://tinyurl.com/299gqs
divewop is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 07:09 AM
  #17  
skimmer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Nyama,

Aka ...

Changing your viewpoint on this topic isn't going to work if I have a look at your former posts regarding this issue.

If D&J can't convince you, why should I even try?

Johan
 
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 07:59 AM
  #18  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>> I'm not living so far away from Flanders...

I know, Walter.

>>> ...but most conservationists regard hunting in our forests as an important conservation tool...

Hunting is needed here as we weeded out all natural predators. I still fail to see the resemblance with the situation in Africa.

@Divewop; thank you for that very good reply; you touch the very nerve of this whole debate!


pixelpower is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 08:13 AM
  #19  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
divewop, I've never been a supporter of bad managed hunting, but I also learned that even if not managed well it can contribute to conservation, simply because other options are not available or are insufficient. When travelling through a national park (Kafue) which had been hit hardly by poaching, and then learning from local people that the best game viewing areas are outside the park in adjoining hunting concessions, I simply don't care if these hunting concessions are well or bad managed, I just look at the results - on one side you have a national wildlife authority which failed to protect its asset, and on the other side you have some hunting operators who apparently perform much better in protecting the wildlife as a whole. A reason to ban them?

Or look at Zim - in many areas photo tourism has gone to zero. The remaining conservancies in these areas just survive through hunting tourism which is by far more robust and reliable than photo tourism, every tourism expert will tell you that. Ever heard of Save Valley Conservancy? To quote one of the managers: "The hunting business ensures that the conservation project can continue to survive and that the conservancy remains intact in its biodiversity." Will you ban hunting here? What do you think will happen then?

Beside this extreme examples, what about all the other remote areas? Have you ever read a study or management plan about how to open such an area for non-consumptive tourism? You need the hunting operators here because their operations require much less infrastructure than photo tourism. I mentioned Niassa. Ever heard of Rani Resorts who manage two of the large buffer blocks that protect Niassa Reserve? Since years they are offering hunts in this area, just to earn money for building up infra structure like tracks and airstrips, educate scouts etc. Now they've opened their first photographic camp. Sounds fantastic, doesn't it. But you must be aware that this won't work in any other way. Condemn hunting here, too?

Ban hunting where photo tourism is a good income generator to protect the area. Put hunting under strict rules. I'm with you. But please stop this black/white thinking and condemn hunting as a whole without having a closer look at such cases I mentioned above.

Johan, I got a scientific education and I'm always open to fact and figures. However, if you regard D&B as highest authority in this field, you are certainly right and shouldn't try to convince me of anything.
nyama is offline  
Old Jul 20th, 2007, 08:44 AM
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just my 2 cents.
Without politics or science, the way I feel is that hunters and those that support it will always justify it one way or another.
They believe what they are doing is ok.

Personally I hate hunting and yes, I am looking at it from an emotional standpoint. But as far as I am concerned there is no excuse or valid reason for humans to kill animals for trophys.
Make all the excuses you like, but it's wrong to kill an animal just to display it's head, horns, skin or whatever as your prize. And then say you are doing it to preserve the future of those animals, or whatever. You are doing it because you enjoy it. No other reason. Or because you make big money from it.

Nature has always taken care of everything and would continue to do so if left to its own devices.
Yes, I would rather an animal live it's natural life and death, whether that death comes from illness, starvation, disease or predators. At least that is natural.

It hasn't died because a person wanted to take it's life to display as a trophy, or boast about their prowess or 'hunting' skills.

I know animals have to die for people to eat, but those people don't kill because they enjoy it, they kill to live.
Feistybrit is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -