Really then why are they the only two countries?

Again if you are going to argue conservation based hunting of a threatened species you need to be able to show that it’s working... if you can’t then you aren’t doing hunting justice and open it up to closure.

Those two countries where not re-investing into conservation, and had little to no proof that hunting dollars where helping continue the revovery of the species. If that’s what you want for a hunting model then by all means keep championing.

Ball is in those two countries court to change public option.

My reply has zero to do with agrueing or win/lose and more about thought process on how we justify and support things.

If they want to do something to help elephants, the countries need to sell tags to go hunt poachers.

Declare some protected areas and get it on.

When we were in one of the control areas of the Serengeti, we had to check in with a ranger station checkpoint before entering a protected area.

Anyone the patrols did not recognize from the check-in point was shot on sight.

From what I saw in Tanzania, the nature tourism dwarfs hunting for generating revenue and jobs, but both are significant.

Did a quick google search and found this info.

The Tanzanian tourism sector plays a significant role in the Tanzanian economy. According to the Permanent Secretary of the Tanzania Ministry of Tourism and Natural Resources, Dr. Adelhelm Meru, in 2014 alone tourism generated around USD 2 billion which constitutes 25% of Tanzania’s foreign exchange earnings, it is at the forefront of the contribution to the country’s economy representing 17% of Tanzania’s GDP in 2014, and directly employs around 600,000 people and up to 2 million people indirectly.

Read more at: https://www.tanzaniainvest.com/tourism/tanzania-tourism-sector-report and follow us on www.twitter.com/tanzaniainvest



Hunting is estimated at between 7% to 10% of the Tanzanian GDP.

Read more at: https://www.tanzaniainvest.com/tourism/h...s-being-tackled and follow us on www.twitter.com/tanzaniainvest


The biggest near term threat to the remaining elephants unquestionably is poaching, primarily for the Asian markets. I am willing to accept a total shutdown of all hunting to stop the flow of ivory, which is what it is going to take to save the elephants. The second biggest threat is the loss of habitat, which is a massive problem and growing rapidly. I would support a global effort to help fund some large protected areas on all continents to preserve as wilderness areas, as wildlife is facing the same problem in many areas.

While Americans tend to get all wrapped around the axle about our impacts in Africa, China is moving in a big way, buying up land for agricultural production to supply China. One of the most interesting comments I heard from an older Tanzanian was complaining about the Chinese. He commented that he wished they had the Brits back as the Brits built schools, hospitals, and created jobs for the locals. The Chinese in contrast bring workers from China and do not provide benefit to the local communities. They also keep trying to push to build a superhighway from Lake Victoria to the coast, which would cut through the heart of the Serengeti. This highway would destroy the migratory patterns of the animals and the cycle of life upon which they depend. We need to keep the world community focused on issues like that, which are far, far greater impacts than hunting, and even the poaching. Of course, that might cause us to look in the mirror at our own land use and development policies. Just something worth pondering.

To me, it is not possible to say all hunting is good or bad, there are lots of issues depending on the place and the species. In general, I'm not a fan of killing for the sake of killing.

Shutting down all legal hunting in order to stop poaching is not the answer. Not in Africa, not in America, not anywhere.
Just as shutting down all legal gun ownership to stop crime is not the answer.

Keep legal, highly regulated and monitored sport hunting intact (hunters don’t sell their ivory to Asian black markets). Stop the poaching by enforcing the laws with any and all efforts necessary. Hunters’ dollars can and do play a big role in doing that. But they can’t if those dollars aren’t there.

NP,

As Bobo mentioned some of the countries are not even trying at all. It is more than enforcing existing laws, when they have no law in some areas, and no respect for legal systems or law enforcement in many areas. Think about the idea of enforcing some laws in some areas of Mexico as a comparison. The wilderness areas are vast and movement across borders is easier than moving from Corsicana to Houston. Poverty is extreme, and one tusk might be the equivalent of several years of income to a family. Imagine if someone offered you five years of your pay to shoot a deer out of season where you live and give them the rack. For folks living hand to mouth, that can be hard to say no and why they are willing to risk being killed. We see it with our own citizens willing to smuggle people and drugs.

The problem is there is so much corruption in many of these countries, there is no way to control and differentiate legally taken ivory from illegally taken ivory. Papers are easily phonied up, ivory moved around and sold into what appears to be legal markets.

I am not saying shut down all hunting, but we are at a point where shutting down elephant hunting may be the only option for now. I'm not conflating hunting elephants with Kudu or wildebeast, any more than prohibiting the hunting of Bald Eagles impacts dove hunting.

It is not all the same.

I am not saying it’s all the same.
What I am saying is where there is incentive to protect and preserve, there will be protection and preservation.
Even if private enterprise has to do it instead of corrupt governments. Happens all over Africa.

If there are no incentives, there will be no protection or preservation.

Taking away the economic value that is sport hunting just takes away that incentive that would otherwise exist. You don’t make any conservation situation better by removing arrows from the quiver. Sport hunting is always a big arrow.

NP,

Hunting is an economic incentive in some areas for some people, but not the only one. The problem is right now in many areas, poachers can kill an elephant and it does have tremendous value to them to sell illegally taken ivory, hunting or no hunting. How to crush that incentive for illegal, unregulated killing is the question and challenge. There are no easy answers.

I spent a few years on global level land trust boards. One of the problems I've seen first hand with protecting some areas and restricting local access and use is that it builds resentment when a foreigner is allowed a consumptive use of a resource that is denied to locals.

Imagine if Zimbabweans were the only ones allowed to hunt deer in East Texas. Assume they had a fantastic, wonderful management plan that was great for deer, and they paid $100,000 for every deer they shot to the local outfitter. Imagine what would happen if Texans could not draw a permit, or not afford one if they could draw a permit? Imagine how many would go shoot a deer on a road at night if they could sell the rack for $100,000 without any permit - the equivalent of several years of pay. Now imagine there are no police, no game wardens, no courts, and no judges within a 100 miles or more and then only by dirt road. In the remote chance they did show up and arrest the Texan poacher, the defendant hires you the connected local lawyer. You put some dollars in the judge's campaign fund and the charges are now dismissed. That is the reality of existence in some of these areas.

I understand that.

It’s complicated for sure, but hard to draw truly valid analogies between America and Africa. Sport hunting by foreigners has been a part of the African landscape for over a century. I’m simply of the opinion that shutting out those that bring economic incentives that enhance both local economies and conservation efforts is not sound policy. IMO this has been proven over and over again in Africa the times it has, in fact, been done.

I’ve yet to see a situation over there actually get better after hunters were shut out of the game.

Dang...I want a pair of ivory grips for my TRP.

Did you ever consider that it simply needs to get worse before they realize they have to do certain things like enforce the laws and eliminate corruption to get hunting back for the better?

Read this in headlines today. Think it was a random burglary or was he targeted?

TIA.

I am not saying ban all hunting, just discussing elephants, but would also include rhinos, gorillas and a few others.

Once hunters are shut out for too long it can get past the point of no return. The denuded landscape devoid of wildlife across much of Kenya is a testament to that fact.
OTOH, when sport hunting is encouraged and wildlife thus has value to the people who live there, it thrives. Namibia is a prime example.

These clips are from the Huffington Post - hardly a biased source given their liberal bent.

I believe it is God's plan that we as humans were meant to destroy what he has created. When we have made Earth inhabitable, the world will end.

Ironically Namibia doesn’t have an importation ban into the US, weird guess they had a sound conservative plan that showed an uptick in numbers. Crazy stuff I tell you......

Yes and a huge part of that conservation plan includes no importation bans and vigorous sport hunting. Go figure. Amazing how you cite to the very facts that prove my point as somehow supporting your opposite argument in favor of bans that result in pushing sport hunting aside.

Down the rabbit hole again Alice.....

Lol... I cite the fact thier weren’t placed on ban because they had an accepted elephant conservation plan that showed and proved to the world that hunting was working, and that Zimbabwe and Zambia obviously failed miserably and where “eventually” banned. Then you want to defend Mugabe’s lack of sound conservation strategy. Oh the irony.

Again for last time, if you are going to defend hunting as conservation you better damn well be able to prove it is. Neither country could nor cared to do so at the time in regards to the threatened Elephants.


Someone who truly cares about hunting and conservation and not just a head on the wall damn sure wants the world to see that when implemented correctly it works and that we care about sustainability of species. If Mugabe’s Zim elephant program is what you wanted you name attached to knock yourself out.

if you want to argue it should be reopened then use examples of how they have proven they have changed thier plans to meet sustainability goals like Namibia has, but you haven’t yet, and wont....

Exactly my feelings.

What round we on?

Finished.

The USFWS announced that Zimbabwe and Zambia met the enhancement requirements , then the crap hit the fan and trump said they were going to review it. Then he said less than complimentary things about African big game hunting. So this was basically a political decision. Disappointed in trump on this, and I am one of his supporters.

Now we are getting some where. Concur

Lol, a complete reversal.

Not a complete reversal in any form...., stated this not once but twice two you.

As typical with you, you didn’t care to research the subject and simply wanted to argue it was bad with out a clue if it was or wasn’t.

If we are going to tell the public why the decision is bad we need to show why it was shut down. Show what’s been corrected and thus why USFW services said they are good now. Right now the general public thinks it’s a ban across all Africa in general to protect all elephants. That’s not the case.

Again if hunting is conservation you have to be able to show that it is.