Trophy Hunting

Information and Discussions on Hunting
Post Reply
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

Image


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Flutterby
Posts: 44150
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:28 pm
Country: South Africa
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Flutterby »

Those are huge numbers! :shock:


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

Yes, even if nine years :yes:

What are they hunting in Canada? Bears and elks -O-


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

Let’s stop attacking each other over game farming and hunting

RIGHT OF REPLY

By Stewart Dorrington• 14 July 2019

Image

You may not like trophy hunting but do not try to kill the industry. The alternatives are far worse and the consequences far-reaching.

I find it rather sad that Don Pinnock continues to lambast the character and “type” the persons involved in trophy hunting. He refers to them as wealthy, elite, callous and cruel. It is simply not so. Simply describing all trophy hunters as wealthy and elite, let alone callous and cruel, immediately shows an unacceptable and incorrect bias on the author’s part. That may be his perception, but it is certainly not true and is a gross generalisation. It is also unfair, dangerous and provocative to stereotype any person and I can only conclude that the use of this wording is an emotive ploy to manipulate the reader. It also simply does not help the process of engagement that is so desperately needed on this topic.

Pinnock complains that hunters react angrily to articles written by people such as himself. Well maybe he is correct, and maybe it is because so many anti-hunting journalists are seen as manipulative in how they approach the topic, crudely stereotyping hunters and hunting. My request from the outset is that we engage on this really important issue, trying to find solutions that benefit conservation and communities. Attacking each other is simply not going to lead to a positive outcome as each side defensively fights its cause.

I want to respond as follows to the issues raised in Pinnock’s article.

As a previous game farm owner in the dry Marico bushveld, I have seen that part of the world positively transform from cattle farming to game farming over the past three decades. This has largely been achieved by the incentive of better financial returns from game farming, which is dependent on hunting, especially trophy hunting. The area has benefited from this transformation.

In many circumstances in South Africa, hunting, and especially trophy hunting, remains the only financially viable option to finance privately owned areas under game and to protect, preserve and promote habitats. We all know that the biggest cause of wildlife loss is from habitat destruction and human-wildlife conflict. Poaching is a growing contributor as well to wildlife loss as is the bushmeat trade. However, regulated and managed hunting is most definitely not a cause of wildlife loss. Nobody can say trophy hunting has caused any damage to any species in South Africa, it is, in fact, quite the opposite.

Trophy hunting has been the cause for the massive growth of private land transforming to wildlife, moving from cattle and other forms of farming. This has allowed for the sustainable management of wildlife on huge tracts of private land. This has seen a massive increase in game numbers and has played a significant role in saving certain species from extinction such as the white rhino, bontebok and Cape mountain zebra which are now arguably more plentiful on private land than on national and provincial parks.

In addition, trophy hunting is part of the solution to some of our land transformation in SA where beneficiaries have obtained prime game areas under land reform.

I am involved with a community who are the beneficiaries of a land claim. There is no better alternative land use than to keep the property under wildlife and the only means, the lowest environmental impact means, is through trophy hunting. In addition, this has the potential to grow into a larger reserve and that creates then the possibility to accommodate the big five which in turn creates opportunity for non-consumptive tourism.

The anti-hunting lobbyists are shutting these opportunities down as they continue to mobilise the public against trophy hunting. I also challenge the anti-hunting establishment to show a better use of the land. It is very easy being an arms-length armchair critic of an industry, when you don’t have to address the reality of what happens if that industry ceases to exist.

The anthropomorphism is a problem to the hunting fraternity but so it should also be to those that consume domestic stock. Why is it in order to kill pigs, chickens and cows in their thousands but not to harvest wild animals for the best price when it is quite sustainable and preserves habitat and the future of the species. Pigs are intelligent animals but yet we eat them as bacon every day.

I am sure many anti-hunting activists readily enjoy a glass of wine, but do they consider the millions of insects, rodents, snakes and birds that are destroyed to create the perfect vineyard? Where is their outrage at this cruelty?

Vast tracts of beautiful natural vegetation are destroyed by the farming of luxury food and drink items that the wealthy consume? Where is the outrage? Where is the stereotyping of those farmers?

I am not for a minute saying they should be trashed, but I point this out to illustrate the double standards that are applied when it comes to journalists and hunting.

One must consider what will happen in South Africa if trophy hunting is stopped.

The value of game will drop as there would be little incentive for farmers to keep wildlife. Thousands of wild animals will be culled to make way for domestic stock (Is it worse to shoot an animal in its natural environment than to feed an animal, transport it to an abattoir and shoot it in the head with a retractable bolt?!)

Most private game farms will become uneconomical to run. This will result in further habitat destruction as land is ploughed over to produce food of all sorts. Add to that the damage that herbicides, pesticides, fertilisers make and erosion to the environment, our rivers and estuaries and you have a greater ecological disaster. It is this that is causing extinction of so many of the world’s species, not trophy hunting. Not a single species has become extinct or even endangered because of trophy hunting.

You may not like trophy hunting, and that I can accept, but do not try kill the industry. The alternatives are far worse and the consequences far-reaching.

Outside of SA, another issue that critics of trophy hunting are not recognising is the large disconnect between African people on the ground and liberal conservation ideologies promoted by the western anti-hunting lobby. The ideals preached by Pinnock can be debated at one level but while this debate is going on few are noticing the rising anger of the rural population. Many see land set aside for wildlife as wasted land and unless the communities benefit in ways they chose, pressure will increase to de-proclaim reserves to make more land available for communities. We have seen this in other countries in Africa. If game has no value, why should a community wish to ensure its survival on their land? They are not going to buy into the liberal self-righteous western argument that game should not be consumed or utilised on a sustainable basis. That has not been my experience when dealing with communities. And again, I have seen absolutely no viable alternatives promoted by the anti-hunting lobby.

More specifically, looking at Don Pinnock’s article, the elephant “Voortrekker” was shot at the request of a community where the elephant was threatening livelihoods. Do we place the life of one elephant above that of a community? The lifting of the ban on elephant hunting in Botswana was because the people on the ground in rural areas requested it as elephants were impacting negatively on their lives through destruction of crops and danger to lives. Villagers are being killed by elephants. The recent Wildlife Summit at Victoria Falls shows an increasing level of frustration from communities and African sovereign states at having western philosophies thrust upon them. The anti-hunting lobby needs to understand that it is promoting the end of an industry without a viable alternative. I do not believe the anti-hunting lobby has the support of the people on the ground and from my experience with communities and in fact there is disbelief that such views exist given the consequences such activism will have on those affected.

Shutting down trophy hunting will just accelerate habitat and species losses. One more thing to consider…the alternatives to trophy hunting will be worse for wildlife as African countries continue to court the Chinese, Russians and the middle east where sentiment is very different regarding animals rights and welfare.

I can understand that people do not like hunting and in particular trophy hunting. But closing the industry is not the solution. We have to start finding common ground and I believe there is a lot in common but we won’t make progress if we continue to attack each other. Let us create a forum where we can discuss problems with hunting as well as those associated with tourism (which are never discussed) and find solutions that will benefit wildlife, our economy and all the people of South Africa. DM 3

Stewart Dorrington, game rancher, professional hunter, wildlife consultant


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75834
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Richprins »

^Q^ ^Q^ ^Q^ ^Q^ ^Q^


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Flutterby
Posts: 44150
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:28 pm
Country: South Africa
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Flutterby »

Well written. \O


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

Image
The site of an old cannery in the Kitlope at Wakasu. A Canadian Pacific Railway steamer used to bring tourists here. Pictured here is the vessel Maple Leaf of Maple Leaf Adventures. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast

How to stop trophy hunting? Buy up all the licences

BY JUDITH LAVOIE - JULY 25TH 2019 - THE NARWHALE

A B.C. conservation group is on a mission to purchase all the commercial hunting licences in the Great Bear Rainforest, where animals like black bears, wolves and cougars can still legally be killed as trophies. The focus right now is the Kitlope, a breathtaking area home to the world’s largest intact area of coastal temperate rainforest

Brian Falconer is more than happy to admit that he and his colleagues at Raincoast Conservation Foundation have dismal records as guide outfitters.

In fact, in the 33,500 square kilometres of B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest where Raincoast holds the commercial hunting licence — which gives the organization the right to escort foreign hunters into the area to shoot black bears, cougars, mountain goats and wolverines — the success rate has been zero.

Unless, that is, you count the wildlife photos.

“The only ones that can take anyone in for trophy hunting is Raincoast and we take a different type of hunter,” said Ross Dixon, Raincoast communications director.

Guide outfitters have exclusive rights in the area of their licence to take non-B.C. residents on hunting trips. Hunting for food by B.C. residents does not come under the purview of guide outfitters.

Raincoast is now raising funds for the $100,000 deposit needed to secure the commercial hunting tenure for the Kitlope, the world’s largest intact area of coastal temperate rainforest where the longest fjord in the world stretches into the heart of the province.

Trophy hunting of wolves, black bears and cougars legal in B.C.

The Kitlope has been protected from logging since the Haisla Nation and the province signed a joint management agreement in 1994. The provincial government banned grizzly bear hunting in 2017, but trophy hunting for other species is still allowed.

Cecil Paul, hereditary chief of the Xenaxiala people, described the Kitlope and the species that live there as the bank of his people.

“They have been robbing our bank for years for no purpose other than to put a trophy on their wall,” Cecil told Raincoast.

“We don’t understand this and we want to stop it.”

It is a sentiment shared by many British Columbians who are surprised to learn that trophy hunting is still allowed in the Great Bear Rainforest and in most provincial parks, Falconer said.

Raincoast has until the end of July to raise the deposit, with about $85,000 already raised. Once the deposit has been paid, fundraising will start for the $550,000 needed to complete the purchase that will give Raincoast the hunting rights for another 5,300 square kilometres, including the Kitlope Conservancy and surrounding area. The deadline for raising the full amount is December 2020, but, with the support of the Haisla Nation, Raincoast aims to have the tenure secured by the end of this year.

It may seem expensive Falconer said but trophy hunters are willing to pay more than $35,000 to kill bears, wolves and cougars and more than $10,000 for mountain goats, bighorn sheep and moose, meaning the value of commercial hunting tenures has soared.

“And remember $550,000 can’t buy half a house in Vancouver,” said Falconer, who, almost 30 years after first visiting the Kitlope at the invitation of the Haisla and Xenaksiala Nations, remains awestruck at the beauty of the area.

Image
A black bear in the Great Bear Rainforest. Despite a ban on the trophy hunting of grizzly bears, black bears can still legally be hunted in British Columbia. Photo: April Bencze / Raincoast

‘It’s like Yosemite on steroids’

“It’s breathtaking and overwhelming. I have never seen a place like it,” he said describing glacial, milky water, trees more than 1,000 years old and granite walls stretching up thousands of feet.

“It’s like Yosemite on steroids. There’s a waterfall every 100 yards —it’s the land of waterfalls — and when you get to the head of (the fjord) there’s a gigantic, beautiful estuary with willow and alder and sedge meadows so you have all the river species and birds. It’s the highway of the north coast for wildlife,” Falconer said.

Which is exactly what makes it so attractive for trophy hunters.

The ultimate goal of Raincoast is to buy all commercial hunting licences in the 64,000 square kilometres of the Great Bear Rainforest, so the area will be protected not only from trophy hunters, but also political whims. In 2002, for instance, the Liberal government scrapped the short-lived ban on grizzly hunting brought in by the former NDP government.

The organization also hopes that, by eliminating the need for governments to compensate tenure holders, it will remove a major disincentive to restrict trophy hunting of other species.

However, everything depends on Raincoast’s capacity to fundraise and, unless there is a massive cash donation, not all offers to sell tenures can be immediately accepted

“Other guide outfitters have approached us, because they see the writing on the wall. … There’s certainly more potential. It’s the new economy. It’s the non-extractive economy of B.C. that isn’t wasteful or extractive,” Falconer said.

Image
A grizzly bear in an intertidal area in the Great Bear Rainforest. Grizzly bear trophy hunting is now banned in British Columbia, but hunters can still kill black bears, wolves and cougars. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast

From hunting guides to wildlife viewing operators

There is no better illustration of the changing economy than in the Kitlope where the tenure has been held since 2015 by Angus Morrison of Wild Coast Outfitters, who is now transitioning his business to wildlife viewing.

Morrison, who also works as a helicopter pilot, said his primary motive in selling the tenure to Raincoast is conservation.

“They probably have the best plan for preserving what is left. I love the wilderness and I travel quite a bit and there is a definite decline. It’s not that I think the hunting, as we were doing it, was wiping out the animals, but the motivation behind some of it is a bit murky,” Morrison told The Narwhal.

“If the animals are already under pressure, I don’t see the point in continuing to hunt them. I think we need to slow down resource extraction and commercial fishing and I know that’s easier said than done.”

Hunting trips booked through Wild Coast Outfitters were conducted on foot and were tough going, which weeded out clients who simply wanted a quick kill, a big head on the walls and bragging rights, but there is that element in the industry, Morrison said.

“I like the idea of seeing people going out there and showing them grizzly bears and things without killing the animals,” he said.

See original post: https://thenarwhal.ca/how-to-stop-troph ... e-licences


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

Yes or no – boycott tourism lodges in Greater Kruger because of neighbouring trophy hunting operations?

Posted on 4 July, 2019 by Simon Espley in Hunting, Opinion Editorial, Wildlife and the Opinion Editorial post series.

Image

Opinion post by Simon Espley – CEO Africa Geographic

Some people call for boycotts of tourism lodges in the Greater Kruger, because some landowners make use of trophy hunting to fund their costs.

The 320,000 ha Greater Kruger is one of Africa’s great conservation success stories.

This vast area is a collection of private and indigenous community-owned reserves (each made up of multiple properties, some as small as 20ha) that have removed internal fences and share unfenced borders with the Kruger National Park, thus forming a vital buffer between the national park and the commercial farms and human settlements to the west.

Some landowners within the Greater Kruger utilise trophy hunting to generate funding for their escalating anti-poaching and other costs. Other landowners utilise tourism for this purpose, and some have no commercialisation at all (they personally fund the costs). The use of trophy hunting in Greater Kruger to generate much-needed funds is a controversial issue, and my view on the topic is no secret. I am no fan of the trophy hunting industry – largely because of how its members behave and the impact they have on the diminishing numbers of big-gene animals remaining in unfenced areas.

Image
The Greater Kruger (light green) and the Kruger National Park (dark green)

But the call to boycott tourism lodges because of trophy hunting on neighbouring properties makes no sense. Please let me explain why I hold this view:

The trophy hunting and tourism operators compete with each other to utilise land in the Greater Kruger. I do not know of one tourism operator that also offers trophy hunting – and I would certainly boycott them specifically if that was the case. By boycotting the tourism operators, you are by implication, threatening their commercial viability. Put simply, if enough people follow your lead, those tourism operators will go out of business. Remember that the need to pay conservation and anti-poaching costs remains, so if tourism is removed from the table, the landowners will either look to trophy hunting to fund those costs, or they will put fences back up and farm livestock or crops (in which case the land available for Kruger wildlife will shrink).

Looking at this from a different angle, by boycotting tourism in this area you are effectively supporting the trophy hunting operators, who will step into the gap created by the demise of the tourism operators, thus expanding their footprint.

Surely the best way to remove trophy hunting as a conservation funding option (if that is your mission) is to make photographic tourism operations so successful that trophy hunting pales by comparison and is therefore ignored by land owners? Let market forces prevail!

Keep the passion

Image


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 5862
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Klipspringer »

Another popular lion hunted and tourism operators get angry

https://africageographic.com/blog/troph ... on-seduli/


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

Those killings should not happen :evil:


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Post Reply

Return to “Hunting”