Hunting

[Lisbeth]

If it only this one % of the agricultural income it cannot have this enormous impact (help) on conservation as all pro-hunting persons sustain. Maybe it should not be compared to the agricultural turnover but rather to the Environmental Affairs or Tourism Department

The income from hunting which is quoted is never alike depending on who is publishing them and to me, it has never been clear how much goes to conservation anyway

[okie]

Lisbeth , the Department of Statistical Services draws up its Statistical Reports based on actual surveys conducted , with questionnaires completed by members in the industry .

[Lisbeth]

[Lisbeth]

Greater KNP Hunting Protocol for Reserves where hunting takes place

BY RICHARD SOWRY - 29 JANUARY 2019

PREAMBLE

Demands for competing land uses that are not compatible with conservation practices, make the need for viable conservation incentives more urgent. Well governed trophy hunting, generates critically needed incentives and revenue to maintain and restore wildlife as land use and to carry out conservation actions, including anti-poaching interventions. It can return much needed income, jobs, and other important economic and social benefits to local communities.

Extending conservation areas through appropriate co-operative arrangements, allows for the maintenance of ecological patterns and processes which provide greater ecological resilience and promotes the long-term persistence of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the broader landscape. However, such an approach should be interlinked with the local socio-economic context, whilst recognizing that these drivers operate at a regional and international level as well.

The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (NEMPA Act 53 of 2003) recognizes the access to biological resources in protected areas for traditional, subsistence and commercial purposes: “to promote sustainable utilisation of protected areas for the benefit of people, in a manner that would preserve the ecological character of such areas.” Section 17 (h) further states that the purpose of a protected area is to provide for the sustainable use of natural and biological resources. Excess game, is such a resource and hunting a legitimate activity which is consistent with the sustainable management of wildlife.

Wildlife economic benefits in and adjacent to National Parks are also in line with government’s commitment towards the development of the green economy in South Africa, recognising that natural resources and ecosystem services are shared between different users. This is in line with the Buffer zone strategy of National Parks. The Vision is to integrate National Parks into local landscapes for the benefit of those living adjacent to the parks whilst maintaining the larger system’s integrity and promoting environmentally sound practices. This forms and integral part of broader multi-stakeholder co-operation which seeks to improve livelihoods, whilst improving the environmental estate through sound environmental practices and programmes. The KNP and neighbouring Conservation areas are contributing jointly towards the conservation effort, having for many years shared the Vision of a large open ecosystem with the Greater KNP (GKNP).

Key guiding principles govern such integrated conservation land use approaches: ethical practices, maintaining the sustainability and integrity of systems, compliance with the legal framework and relevant protocols, transparent decision-making, accountability, and co-partnerships allowing for the fair and equitable distribution of benefits from the use of the natural resources.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Certain of the Reserves do not permit hunting and do not benefit financially or otherwise from hunting activities and accordingly have not subscribed to this Protocol.

The series of hunting protocols have been established which are adapted by those reserves and regions within the GKNP area, which hunt. All utilisation of the natural resource are governed by the underlying principles of ecological sustainability1 , taking into consideration economic and social best practice. Professional (commercial) hunting is conducted in these areas with the goals of providing the income to contribute to the management of the environment in a manner in line with each reserves objectives and the best sustainable practice possible and to support social initiatives of community development as per Reserve specific programmes.

In determining off take numbers, due regard is given to the population dynamics and general well- being of the particular species. All decisions must be based on accepted techniques and methodology and be in the realm of accepted conservation practice. This will be based on recent, up to date and relevant data on the particular population. As far as possible the populations should be seen in the broader GKNP context and not merely on a farm or reserve basis. In this regard any off-take should be based on preapproved numbers and in terms of the Management plan and approved by the JMC.

Bearing the above in mind, the protocol will be adapted as new information becomes available. All hunting must be undertaken within a responsible, professional and ethical manner.

Read full report here: https://conservationaction.co.za/wp-con ... -3-2-1.pdf

[Lisbeth]

" Excess game" are the keywords IMO

[stefan9]

Dear Wildies,

I just signed the campaign: TELL TANZANIA TO RE-BAN TROPHY HUNTING

It would mean the world to me if you could also add your name to this important issue. Every name that is added builds momentum around the campaign and makes it more likely for us to get the change we want to see.

Will you join me by taking action on this campaign?

https://www.vuma.earth/petitions/tell-t ... ucket=ETan

After you've signed the petition please also take a moment to share it with others. It's super easy – all you need to do is forward this email.

Thank you!

Done. I hate hunting with absolutely passion so no problem signing any anti hunting petition.

[Lisbeth]

[stefan9]

" Excess game" are the keywords IMO

Key being who decides its excess game and how. Way too vague for me.

[PennyinSA]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... IpvJUufKEM

[Lisbeth]

Does trophy hunting really benefit conservation and local communities?

BY ANDREAS WILSON-SPATH - 5 FEBRUARY 2019 - DAILY MAVERICK

Every year, thousands of tourists visit South African private nature reserves to see wild animals in unspoilt surroundings. But how many of these travellers know that some of the most luxurious safari destinations and self-declared champions of conservation also allow these iconic animals to be killed by trophy hunters for ‘sport’?

Exclusive private nature reserves such as Timbavati, Umbabat, Klaserie and Balule on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park claim that they need the income from trophy hunting to remain viable.

Don Scott, co-owner of the Tanda Tula tented camps in Timbavati, bemoans the fact that as a non-profit organisation they receive no government funding and have to bear the full cost of running the reserve.

In doing so, he neatly sidesteps the fact that while the reserve itself may be run on a not-for-profit basis, the expensive tourist and hunting lodges located within its borders most certainly are not. Why should private land and lodge owners not pay full operational costs to support their profitable enterprises?

Besides, reserves such as Timbavati draw enormous benefits from being physically connected to the vastly larger ecosystem of the adjoining national park. Fences between Timbavati and the Kruger National Park were removed in 1993 and the considerable profits in access, prestige and natural services the private reserve derives from this connection are difficult to estimate in financial terms and greatly outweigh the onus of having to pay for running costs. Far from not getting subsidies, Timbavati, in effect, continuously receives contributions from a publicly owned entity.

Conservation levies vs trophy hunting

Scott points out that Timbavati “relies on income generated from two forms of sustainable utilisation — photographic tourism and trophy hunting”. He appears surprised that by raising the conservation levies charged to Timbavati’s photographic tourists, the reserve has recently been able to significantly increase the proportion of revenue generated in this way, compared with trophy hunting.

This is hardly a groundbreaking revelation. Private nature reserves throughout Africa have long managed to run financially sustainable operations without having to rely on income from commercial hunting.

Many of the high-paying visitors to reserves such as Timbavati would undoubtedly be willing to pay conservation levies that would guarantee that no trophy killing happens at their chosen holiday spot. Scott himself notes that Timbavati’s conservation levies are less than a third those charged in other parts of Africa.

He writes that “it would be a great achievement for the conservation levies to, one day, fully cover the operational expense budget of the Timbavati”. Given that many others have demonstrated that this is possible right now, why can’t that “one day” be today?

Perhaps it is time for reserves such as Timbavati to acknowledge trophy hunting for what it is: A hugely profitable indulgence for a super-rich elite obsessed with adding as many exotic stuffed animal heads to their collection, rather than a necessary income stream for landowners.

Limited conservation value

So what’s on Timbavati’s “sustainable utilisation” menu for trophy hunters in 2019? A total of 68 animals representing 11 species, including 25 Cape buffalo, two hippos, three giraffes, three spotted hyenas and, perhaps most controversially, 10 elephants. Umbabat, Klaserie and Balule provide similar offerings, including 37 additional elephants.

While “environmental sustainability” and “conservation” are themes that are touted repeatedly in the marketing materials of these reserves, their active participation in commercial hunting puts them on the wrong side of a global consensus that has debunked the supposed conservation value of the industry.

Assessing commercial hunting in South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, a 2016 report by the Democratic Party staff of the US House Committee on Natural Resources concludes that “significant questions remain about whether or not trophy hunting is sustainable” even where it is comparatively well managed. Other studies demonstrate the detrimental impact hunting for trophies can have on African wildlife populations.

In South Africa, commercial hunting has been marred by scandals involving the captive breeding of lions for canned hunts and a number of private nature reserves have come under fire for their trophy-hunting practices. In 2017, for instance, Timbavati was criticised for seeking permission to hunt an international-standard trophy tusker elephant, and in 2018, hunters in Umbabat shot dead a well-known pride male lion using bait, despite landowner requests not to kill this much-loved lion.

In 2018 a professional hunter in Balule was convicted for conducting an illegal hunt in the reserve and killing a collared research elephant. Also in Balule later in the year, a hunter took 13 shots to kill a young elephant in sight of horrified tourists.

Such activities are doing irreparable damage to South Africa’s conservation credentials and stand to cost the country millions in revenue from outraged tourists looking for an ethical holiday experience in the African bush.

Little help for local communities

Yet another assertion made by the pro-hunting lobby is that revenues earned contribute to the economic development of rural communities in surrounding areas. In reality, such benefits are limited androutinely overstated by pundits.

Instead of taking a proactive approach, reserves such as Timbavati seem to trust in a trickle-down theory of local economic development, suggesting that their mere existence will somehow lift locals out of poverty.

The fallacy of this posture is confirmed by Martina Segage’s 2015 Masters dissertation, for which she surveyed 99 households in Timbavati Village, concluding that the adjacent reserve “is yet to contribute towards local economic development because its practice is devoid of community development principles”.

Scott writes of “finding innovative ways to help local communities derive income from wildlife activities”, but the only planned benefit for the reserve’s neighbours he mentions for 2019 is the intention to donate the revenue earned from two commercial buffalo hunts. This, he suggests, will help to forge closer links with the reserve’s neighbours.

In a place where some of the planet’s poorest people see some of its most wealthy enjoy the beauty of their ancestral homeland, this supposedly generous gesture would be laughable if the situation wasn’t quite so tragic.

Read original article: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article ... mmunities/