Trophy Hunting

[Richprins]

Peta wants investigation into ‘botched’ Eastern Cape buffalo hunt
10 June 2021 - 06:34
Shonisani Tshikalange Reporter

Peta wants the Eastern Cape economic development, environmental affairs & tourism department to launch an investigation into hunting outfitter John X Safaris for what it claims was a botched buffalo killing.


EDITOR’S NOTE: This story contains a video of an animal being shot in a hunt, which some readers might find disturbing.

https://youtu.be/KziEnWghwvA

Animal rights organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) has called for an immediate investigation into what it says was a “botched” buffalo hunt at an Eastern Cape safari estate.

Peta has called for the provincial economic development, environmental affairs & tourism department to probe hunting outfitter John X Safaris and the circumstances of the hunt it conducted in May 2021.

A person who answered the phone listed on John X Safaris website, but who refused to give his name, said they would not comment on the issue.

“There is no comment on that. It’s not a botched hunt; it was a legal hunt. 100% legal,” he said.

The call for an investigation comes after, video footage by John X Safaris shows a trophy hunter ignoring the direction of his guide and killing two Cape buffalo, a near-threatened species, at the Woodlands Safari Estate last month said Peta.


Peta said that, pending the Eastern Cape government’s investigation, it wanted the safari company to be denied hunting permits. It also wants the individual hunter responsible to be “prohibited from hunting in the Eastern Cape”.

It said the hunt took place on the estate, near Makhanda. The incident was brought to its attention by concerned members of the public, it said.

In response, Peta said it sent an e-mail to Eastern Cape officials, asking for an “immediate investigation into the conduct and permits of the hunt and the outfitter’s subsequent endorsement of the hunter’s actions”.

“Peta is calling on authorities to do some digging and, if anything illegal was afoot, throw the book at everyone responsible for this sickening act,” said Peta senior vice-president, Jason Baker.

Eastern Cape economic development, environmental affairs & tourism department's communications manager, Ncedo Lisani, confirmed that it received the letter on Wednesday and that it was investigating.

In the letter, which was sent to TimesLIVE, Peta asks the department to examine the permits used for the hunt and the methods applied to secure retroactive permission for the additional buffalo killed.

“Since you are the head of the department responsible for issuing hunting permits and ensuring that hunting legislation is enforced, we request that you investigate the conduct of this botched hunt and address John X Safari’s endorsement of the hunter’s actions,” said Peta in the letter.

According to Peta, the hunter “ineptly” shot and wounded the animals, who “writhed and stumbled in agony” before slowly dying.

“This man laughed as he cruelly gunned down a pair of magnificent buffalo, and the outfit in charge of the hunt wasted no time boasting about it online,” said Baker, making reference to an Instagram post.


Peta said the hunter claims to have intentionally killed both buffalo, despite apparently having only secured advance permission to kill one and in defiance of the guide’s instructions to shoot only the first buffalo.

As the hunter appears to shoot the wrong buffalo, as captured in the video, the guide says: “No! I said the one on the right. Wait, wait!”

Afterwards, the hunter laughs and dismisses his guide’s concern over the extra kill, saying: “I guess I got $32,000” — which, Peta says, was double the original fee.

“I’m gonna be honest with ya, I saw him in the scope, and I took ‘em both,” the hunter can be heard saying.

TimesLIVE


https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/sout ... falo-hunt/

[Lisbeth]

[Lisbeth]

Keywords: stock, wildlife, lion, Cecil, poaching, hunting Cecil the lion relaxing at sunset in Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe

Has trophy hunting changed since the death of Cecil the lion?

BY KITTY BLOCK AND SARA AMUNDSON - 1ST JULY 2021 - HUMANE SOCIETY

It has been six years since the death of Cecil, a male lion who was a popular individual for wildlife viewing tourists visiting Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe. The heartbreaking details of the hunt that killed Cecil made international headlines: Cecil was lured out of the protected area with elephant carcass bait and shot by the hunter with an arrow. After suffering for 10 agonizing hours, Cecil was killed with a gunshot.

We believe it is important to remember Cecil’s story. We owe it to him and to the thousands of animals killed by trophy hunters each year to expose the cruelty of the hunts that claim their lives. Commemorating the anniversary of Cecil’s death, a new report by Humane Society International/Europe released earlier this week in six languages gives new insight about the demand driving the deaths of these animals. “EU Trophy Hunting by the Numbers” reveals that the European Union is the second biggest importer of hunted wildlife trophies after the United States.

What the trophy numbers show

Trophies are the horns, tusks, teeth and other body parts that hunters bring home from their killing sprees abroad. In the five-year period we analyzed (2014 to 2018), the EU imported trophies taken from 889 African lions, 229 of whom were wild lions like Cecil. Following the listing of the African lion under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2016 which placed federal import restrictions on the species, EU has surpassed the U.S. as the largest importer of African lion hunting trophies.

We also found that trophy hunters from the EU imported nearly 15,000 trophies from 73 “internationally protected species,” including African lions, African elephants, leopards, giraffe, cheetahs, critically endangered black rhinos, zebras, dwindling Argali sheep and vulnerable polar bears. During the same time period, the EU stood as the largest importer of cheetah trophies in the world.

Imports of trophies into the EU is rising, according to trade data from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): Between 2014 and 2018, imports of trophies have steadily increased by almost 40%. Despite these staggering statistics, opinion polls reveal that EU citizens deplore trophy hunting—over 80% of those surveyed oppose the practice.

Yet trophy hunting stubbornly continues. Germany, Spain and Denmark account for 52% of all EU imported trophies. Namibia, South Africa, Canada and the U.S. are among the largest exporters of trophies to the EU. European trophy hunters are also coming to the U.S. to kill animals. American black bears, brown bears, mountain lions and gray wolves are among the top trophies exported to the EU.

How to take action against trophy hunting

We have often called attention to the damage that American trophy hunters have done to wild animals, at home and abroad. With the new HSI/Europe report, the verdict is out: The collective carnage of globe-trotting European and American trophy hunters seeking out rare animals to kill for their collections is a global embarrassment.

Fortunately, several countries within the EU and beyond have taken actions or are considering measures to stamp out trophy imports. France and Australia have banned the import of lion trophies since 2015. The Netherlands banned trophy imports of over 200 species in 2016. Just last month the UK government reiterated its commitment to soon introduce the world’s toughest trophy import ban. Two political parties in Germany have included a trophy import ban in their party manifestos.

European policymakers are increasingly challenging the status quo of governments allowing trophy imports without robust scientific and conservation scrutiny and are demanding change. This week, HSI/Europe co-hosted a webinar on trophy hunting with the European Parliament’s interest group, Members of European Parliament for Wildlife and several other leading conservation and animal groups. The groups highlighted how trophy hunting is incompatible with preserving biodiversity and jointly called for a ban on trophy imports into the EU.

German MEP Manuela Ripa hosted the event and said: “n the wake of the EU Biodiversity Strategy it is important to consider the impact that European citizens traveling to far-flung destinations solely to shoot and bring home animal body parts may be having on wild animal populations elsewhere around the world. Instead of having tightly regulated trophy hunting, I pledge for tightly regulated ‘photo hunting’ which would have a bigger benefit for species, support ecosystems and communities involved.”

The growing actions taken by policymakers around the globe make it more imperative that the U.S. catch up to the international momentum to end trophy hunting. We were encouraged this week when a United States House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee approved language prohibiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from issuing trophy hunting import permits for lions and elephants taken in Tanzania, Zimbabwe or Zambia. Among other steps, the U.S. Congress must reintroduce and pass the Prohibiting Threatened and Endangered Creature Trophies Act (ProTECT Act), which would help prevent the hunting of any species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act as soon as possible. And the Biden Administration must reform the trophy import permit process to protect animals and affirm the conservation goals supported by millions of Americans.

Join us in the fight to protect animals from trophy hunting by signing this pledge. You can also contact your lawmakers and urge them to introduce and pass the ProTECT Act.

Original article: https://blog.humanesociety.org/2021/07/ ... s0RmMLfmhg

[Richprins]

This really answers the bunny-huggers:

[Peter Betts]

This really answers the bunny-huggers:

It makes me embarressed to be part of the Human Race >> We are the Bottom Feeders on Planet Earth for sure

[Peter Betts]

Peta wants investigation into ‘botched’ Eastern Cape buffalo hunt
10 June 2021 - 06:34
Shonisani Tshikalange Reporter

Peta wants the Eastern Cape economic development, environmental affairs & tourism department to launch an investigation into hunting outfitter John X Safaris for what it claims was a botched buffalo killing.


EDITOR’S NOTE: This story contains a video of an animal being shot in a hunt, which some readers might find disturbing.

https://youtu.be/KziEnWghwvA

Animal rights organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) has called for an immediate investigation into what it says was a “botched” buffalo hunt at an Eastern Cape safari estate.

Peta has called for the provincial economic development, environmental affairs & tourism department to probe hunting outfitter John X Safaris and the circumstances of the hunt it conducted in May 2021.

A person who answered the phone listed on John X Safaris website, but who refused to give his name, said they would not comment on the issue.

“There is no comment on that. It’s not a botched hunt; it was a legal hunt. 100% legal,” he said.

The call for an investigation comes after, video footage by John X Safaris shows a trophy hunter ignoring the direction of his guide and killing two Cape buffalo, a near-threatened species, at the Woodlands Safari Estate last month said Peta.


Peta said that, pending the Eastern Cape government’s investigation, it wanted the safari company to be denied hunting permits. It also wants the individual hunter responsible to be “prohibited from hunting in the Eastern Cape”.

It said the hunt took place on the estate, near Makhanda. The incident was brought to its attention by concerned members of the public, it said.

In response, Peta said it sent an e-mail to Eastern Cape officials, asking for an “immediate investigation into the conduct and permits of the hunt and the outfitter’s subsequent endorsement of the hunter’s actions”.

“Peta is calling on authorities to do some digging and, if anything illegal was afoot, throw the book at everyone responsible for this sickening act,” said Peta senior vice-president, Jason Baker.

Eastern Cape economic development, environmental affairs & tourism department's communications manager, Ncedo Lisani, confirmed that it received the letter on Wednesday and that it was investigating.

In the letter, which was sent to TimesLIVE, Peta asks the department to examine the permits used for the hunt and the methods applied to secure retroactive permission for the additional buffalo killed.

“Since you are the head of the department responsible for issuing hunting permits and ensuring that hunting legislation is enforced, we request that you investigate the conduct of this botched hunt and address John X Safari’s endorsement of the hunter’s actions,” said Peta in the letter.

According to Peta, the hunter “ineptly” shot and wounded the animals, who “writhed and stumbled in agony” before slowly dying.

“This man laughed as he cruelly gunned down a pair of magnificent buffalo, and the outfit in charge of the hunt wasted no time boasting about it online,” said Baker, making reference to an Instagram post.


Peta said the hunter claims to have intentionally killed both buffalo, despite apparently having only secured advance permission to kill one and in defiance of the guide’s instructions to shoot only the first buffalo.

As the hunter appears to shoot the wrong buffalo, as captured in the video, the guide says: “No! I said the one on the right. Wait, wait!”

Afterwards, the hunter laughs and dismisses his guide’s concern over the extra kill, saying: “I guess I got $32,000” — which, Peta says, was double the original fee.

“I’m gonna be honest with ya, I saw him in the scope, and I took ‘em both,” the hunter can be heard saying.

TimesLIVE


https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/sout ... falo-hunt/

And his Parents are probably Siblings

[Lisbeth]

Another giant elephant trophy hunted – is this conservation?

Posted on July 29, 2021 by James Hendry (Africa Geographic editor-in-chief) in the OPINION EDITORIAL post series.


Elephant bull shot in the CH8 concession, Botswana, on or around 17 July – a so-called ‘100 pounder’.

Around 17 July 2021, a hunter shot a massive elephant bull (a tusker) in the Controlled Hunting Area (CHA) CH8 in the Chobe region of Botswana. The hunt was legal from what we can gather (i.e. conducted with the requisite permits, licences, etc.). According to the owner of the hunting operation that led the hunt, it was conducted ethically. What this means is not entirely clear as no further details were forthcoming despite repeated requests. The hunting operator was cagey, as is often the case.


Map of Botswana hunting concessions and the 2020 elephant quotas allocated to each. (Courtesy of Elephants without borders)

The measurements for this bull were as follows:

• 108-pound (49(144 cm) (length of the tusks from the lip to the tip)

• 19 1/2 inches at the lip kg) tusker (mass of the heaviest tusk or an average of the two tusks)

• 57 inches out (49.5 cm) (circumference of the tusk at the lip)

These measurements provided by our sources could not, unfortunately, be verified. The owner of the concession, Thys de Vries, responded as follows:

Unfortunately, I cannot comment on your query (for reasons I am sure you are aware of with the social media frenzy shit storm that happens when things go public). All I will say is it was an ethical, legal hunt within our CHA CH 8 Concession out of an overpopulated Botswana elephant population.


This elephant gives a good idea as to how big a ‘hundred pounder’s’ ivory is. This is NOT the bull shot on 17 July. This elephant’s story can be found here.

This was supposed to be a short, sad story on the death of another great tusker at the hands of a wealthy hunter armed with a high-calibre hunting rifle. Instead, it has turned into a rather tricky, often intensely personal, exercise in considering all the stakeholders in the Botswana hunting melange – the rural communities, the trophy hunters, the Botswana government and, not least, the elephants. The government of Botswana and the Botswana Association of Wildlife Producers, unlike the hunter, were refreshingly forthcoming with facts and figures.

Declaration


I must admit at the outset that I consider trophy hunting to be archaic and distasteful. I think it will eventually be consigned to the scrapheap of humanity’s abuse of nature. But I might be wrong. I cannot, in good conscience, not examine why I feel like this and ask if my feelings are justified while accepting that virtually nothing in this world is black or white, wrong or right. I must admit that my perspective is coloured by genetics, upbringing, education, experience and those with whom I have associated. The revulsion I feel about trophy hunting is not necessarily correct, right or even justified – no matter how real it is to me.

Some background: I wasn’t raised fishing and hunting. My parents hated guns, and no amount of begging could convince them to give me a pellet gun. We never talked about hunting; the activity was entirely beyond our frame of reference. We ate meat, and I can’t recall ever discussing where it came from or considering the living conditions of the animals we braaied on summer Saturday afternoons. I still eat meat, although seldom, and only if I am relatively satisfied that the animal wasn’t treated with cruelty.

When I left university, I trained to be a guide and in the course of the training, I had to learn to use a high-calibre rifle in case I should ever have to defend my guests from a charging animal.

I have shot animals.

The first impala I shot left me awash with wildly differing emotions. I fired the rifle and ran from cover to find the ram, eyes open, tongue lolling, the final twitches of death shuddering through him. Tears flowed. I felt ashamed and sad and elated all at once. I dragged the hapless ram back to camp, where a line of cheering people clapped me on the back and told me how clever I was. I felt elated again. Then I felt sad again. This was the final test I had to pass to become a guide – it tested my skill with the weapon and the bushcraft I had learnt. We ate him a few days later.

I have shot other impala for the pot, thankfully all clean hits – this was harvesting from a vehicle for food. I did not feel awful about this – it would have been illogical as a meat-eater. We are predators – human beings have consumed animal products for millennia. Our physiologies are adapted to this (even if we are not obligate carnivores).

A few years after my first impala hunt, a runaway fire caught a herd of elephants in the Kruger National Park. The traumatised animals came onto the concession where I worked, and the Kruger section ranger asked me to help him euthanase them – they were horrifically burnt and suffering terribly. I remember standing in front of the first big cow. She turned to face us, her head held high, ears out.

We shot her.

I have to confess to a certain sense of exhilaration as the massive animal fell. I felt, for want of a better term, powerful. For me, this quickly faded to sadness. I can only assume that the thrill is more permanent to people who repeatedly hunt – that the rush of standing in front of an adult elephant, front on, and then ending its life is something they crave.

Hunting in Botswana – lifting of the moratorium

On 23 May 2019, the Botswana Government lifted the five-year moratorium on hunting. This created a predictable flaring of the pro versus anti-hunting rhetoric, the same arguments rehashed and shouted from various soapboxes.

Regardless of how you feel about the trophy hunting of elephants, elephant populations in Botswana, what constitutes an ethical hunt (if such a thing exists), research shows that the numbers of tuskers like the bull shot on 17 July are in decline. This is not the fault of all trophy hunters operating today but rather a legacy of centuries of ivory trading, poaching and trophy hunting.


Various elephants shot in Botswana

Why the need for big ivory?

Poachers will target so-called ‘hundred pounders’ or any large tusked elephants – the more the ivory, the greater the pay. However, it is not clear why some trophy hunters, who bleat about how they only hunt because they love nature, would seek to shoot the remaining big tuskers. It is also unclear to me (as a non-hunter of trophies) why an animal with big tusks is more rewarding to shoot than one with smaller tusks – the tracking, risks, etc., are the same. There is nothing more dangerous or difficult about hunting a big tusker compared with a tuskless animal.

Unfortunately, to my mind anyway, the desire to shoot large-tusked bulls must surely have its roots in the human ego and not in the love for tracking, nature or ‘fair chase’. It must come from the desire to say ‘mine is bigger than yours’. The same goes for record antelope horns. We assign arbitrary human value to a genetic expression.

At the same time, I must acknowledge that by bemoaning the hunting of big tusked elephants, I am also assigning an arbitrary value to elephant tusk size and suggesting that, if people insist on shooting elephants, they choose ones with smaller tusks. Smaller tusked elephants would be justifiably alarmed by this – who is to say that they are of less value to the species in general than their larger tusked compatriots? I am not aware of any science that suggests this. To the average marula or knobthorn tree, the ideal elephant is a tuskless one.

That said, I don’t think anyone – from the most ardent hunter to the most rabid anti-hunter – would disagree with the assertion that it would be sad to lose the last remaining tuskers. They’re impressive beasts, fantastic to photograph, and evolution has dictated that they are here, so let’s not make a dodo or quagga of them.

In the case of the bull that started this reflection, perhaps the hunter thought he was beyond breeding age – we don’t know because the hunter wouldn’t comment. Botswana Wildlife Producers Association committee member, Debbie Peake, justified the shooting of tuskers as sustainable because, by the time their tusks reach 100 pounds, they have already mated any number of times and, therefore, their genes exist in the population.

Dr FJ Verreynne (BVSc, M.Phil Wildlife Management), Coordinator: Research and Veterinary Working Group Botswana Wildlife Producers Association notes the following:

‘Controlled hunting of elephant bulls in Botswana under the international CITES annual export quota of 400 individuals is part of the sustainable utilization policy of the Government of Botswana. There is no legal ceiling on the size of the tusks to be hunted although tusks of less than 11kg may not be exported. It is therefore expected for bulls with bigger tusks to be hunted in Botswana. It is encouraged to hunt older bulls which genes have already been spread within the wider population.

‘BWPA acknowledges the intrinsic value of big tusk elephant bulls. We have therefore approached the DWNP in December 2020 to fund and fit monitoring collars on ten of the big tuskers known to be present in Northern Botswana. This will allow the Association, anti-poaching authorities and our members to look after the animals, and protect them against poaching and hunting. We have received no response from the Department on our request and therefore refer all enquiries regarding the hunting of big tusk elephant bulls to The Director: Department of Wildlife and National Parks.’

This does not explain the research showing a decline in large tuskers. It gives no hard facts about how many youngsters the tusker may have sired or how many he could have sired before being shot. In theory, elephant bulls are perfectly capable of breeding almost until they die. If there was a chance that this animal could breed again, then the hunt reduced his genetic legacy. Indeed research shows that far from slowing down as they get older, 50-year-old bulls move twice as fast and over 3.5 times the area when in musth compared with their 20-year-old counterparts. Other research (here and here) shows that elephant bulls of all ages are important in elephant society – as mates, mentors and disciplinarians.

Was the sacrifice of this bull worth it? Well, let’s examine what these hunts are worth financially.


An elephant bull in Nxai Pan National Park, a park surrounded by hunting concessions

Background to current Botswana hunting

The Botswana Government argued, in broad strokes, that the hunting moratorium should be lifted because:

• There was inadequate community consultation when the ban was imposed;

• The ban was not based on scientific evidence;

• There had been an increase in human-elephant conflict (HEC);

• There had been an increase in human-predator conflict; and

• The lack of hunting was having drastic adverse effects on rural livelihoods.

The Ministry reasserted Botswana’s sovereign right to lift the hunting ban and claimed that all stakeholders were consulted (NGOs, conservationists, scientists, leaders of neighbouring countries). The decision was made in the best interests of the rural communities and aimed to stem HEC and encourage communities to support sustainable use conservation and tourism. It also claimed that Community-Based Organisations (CBO) that have marginal land would again benefit.

The statement claims that ‘following the implementation of the moratorium, it became abundantly clear that non-consumptive practices on marginal lands did not contribute to economic development.’ (For complete statements from the Botswana government, see here and here.)

I am not sure how seriously anybody takes the justification of hunting on the grounds that it will reduce HEC. It stretches the limits of credulity to suggest that the hunting of 277 elephants from a population of some 130,000 will stop or minimise HEC. However, the economic arguments are worth considering and, for anti-trophy hunters like me, they’re even more critical.

How much money and where it is going?

What follows applies to the Special Elephant Quota (70 animals) and not the Citizen Quota or the Community Concession Quota (see below in the section ‘From the Director-General’ for further explanation).

The government put the 70 elephants up for auction. The quota was allocated to marginal areas that do not benefit from photographic tourism because they are unsuitable for various reasons. In broad strokes, hunting operations bid for allocations of ten elephants at a time. Because of the travel bans caused by the Covid 19 pandemic, the quotas for 2020 were rolled over to 2021.

The ten-elephant quota bundles sold for between BWP 3.6 million (USD 326,520) and BWP 4.75 million (USD 430,825). A seventh package didn’t meet the government’s reserve price of BWP 2 million. The most expensive hunt went for USD 43 000 per elephant. (https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/bo ... per-animal)

The Special elephant quota generated a total of BWP 25.7 million (approx. USD 2.3 million) for the Conservation Trust Fund, which is administered by the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources, Conservation and Tourism. People in rural areas can apply to the fund for various development projects (see comment below from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks).

After the auction, the hunting operators sold the hunts at a profit. This season, the prices from various operators ranged from US$ 28,000 to US$ 80,000, depending on the area. This is the package cost of the hunt and will include accommodations, professional hunters fees, government hunting fees, conservation fees, trophy fees – all of which vary according to the area. Some areas are difficult to access, have rustic camps, are challenging to hunt in and have more people living in and around them. Others are wilder, easier to access and have luxury camps.

In addition, the government collected around BWP 5.74 (USD 521,000) million from license fees.

Meat from hunts is distributed to residents or adjoining communities where possible, and processed meat generates significant revenue for local-level households. It is difficult to quantify this, but the amount probably extends to a few hundred thousand pula over all the concessions (according to the Botswana Wildlife Producers Association).



From the Director-General

Below is an outline of the hunting process and the benefits outlined to me by Doctor Kabelo Senyatso, director-general of the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP).

Simplified, the hunting quota in Botswana consists of 3 components:

1. Community/concession quota. The DWNP issues a quota to Community Based Organisations (CBOs), which are legal entities representing communities where the CBO exists – or concessionaires of particular Controlled Hunting Areas (CHAs). They then dispose of their quotas as they see fit, e.g. some auction their quotas as single lots, some in several lots. Some enter joint venture partnerships where profits are shared after hunts. Income from these sales goes directly to the CBOs.
2. Citizen quota. These are issued to CHAs and not CBOs. They are disposed of via a raffle system to citizens. They are transferable only once to other citizens, and during the transfer, the winner of the raffle sells off their right at a rate negotiated with the ‘purchasing citizen’.
3. Special elephant quota. These are auctioned by DWNP, and funds go into a Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) managed by DWNP. The CTF is then used to support (i) elephant conservation projects and (ii) community livelihoods projects in the elephant range. One hundred per cent of the special elephant quota goes into the CTF, from which elephant conservation projects (70%) and community livelihood projects (30%) are funded.
Added to the above, the CBOs also charge hunting parties various fees associated with the hunts, all of which then add to the average price of a hunt.

Doctor Senyatso went on to say, ‘In June 2020, we reached a milestone of BWP 100,000,000 (USD 9,070,000) of the CTF having been disbursed for elephant conservation and upliftment of communities in the elephant range (since CTF inception in 1999), which is worth celebrating.’

Conclusion

Even the most ardent anti-trophy hunter cannot fail to be impressed by some of these figures. Only the most heartless and ignorant (of facts at ground level) would claim that the poor people living in these marginal areas do not deserve to benefit from maintaining the wildlands and not turning them into cattle ranches and ploughed fields.

That said, I find the justification that wealthy hunters are saving marginal wildlife areas offensive – even though it is inescapably true in some cases. The logic broadly being that unless the moneyed hunter who loves nature can get something out of that nature (in the form of a trophy, an adrenaline rush etc.), they will not invest in protecting it. But the same could be said of any commercial tourism operation – all the employment and other benefits that come with a prosperous business would disappear without profit – their investors would put their money elsewhere. Many luxury photo tourism operations have a significant environmental footprint per guest and, therefore, are extractive and damaging. Both trophy hunting and much photographic tourism are subjecting nature conservation to forces of the ‘market’. This is despite the fact that the ‘market’ is utterly oblivious to its effect on the environment in countless industries.

It is also beholden on me to acknowledge the contribution that trophy hunting operations make to rural people’s well-being and economic development if the figures quoted above are accurate. They come from two independent sources and I do not have any reason to doubt them at this stage.

So, where does that leave the argument?

I don’t know. But I do know that productive engagements like the ones I had with the Botswana government and with the Botswana Association of Wildlife Producers are extremely helpful. As offensive as I find the idea of shooting an animal minding its own business, stuffing it and mounting it on a wall, I can accept that the practice is not entirely harmful, albeit a practice I do not understand and still believe will disappear in the future. For anti-trophy hunters, the challenge remains – who will fill the financial gap if/ when the trophy hunters shut up shop?

Finally, back to the tusker shot on 17 July. I do think there is little value in shooting tuskers for the sake of it. Detailed research shows that the practice is reducing their genetic legacy. They provide no more meat, tracking challenge or adrenaline rush to the hunter than smaller-tusked elephants.

In all of this, let us try, impossible as it may be, to keep our minds open, our egos at bay and to be aware of where our particular perspectives originate.

[Peter Betts]

Photographic Tourism brings in Far More and helps Communities far more Financially >> Trophy Hunting only supples Meat and a far smaller cash bit

[Klipspringer]

Good article

[Richprins]

it was an ethical, legal hunt within our CHA CH 8 Concession out of an overpopulated Botswana elephant population.