Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Education required, gentlemen

It seems that someone on here has "browsed" enough to now be an expert on African hunting and conservation.

Perhaps those with more actual knowledge than mere "browsing" could lend a hand in educating the rest of us.

Thanks,

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/10232930/2

I hate to tell you this Birdie, but you are as FOS as Hogan's Goat when it comes to this topic, or at the very least, you are reading crap from what amounts to the anti-hunting crowd. There are myriad studies resources (hell, even check the NYT's recent article "Killing Lions to Save Lions" (or words to that effect). The point being, destruction habitat, i.e. human encroachment with domesticated animals (feline aids), indiscriminate poisoning and killing of entire prides in order to reduce cattle killers and outright poaching IS the culprit behind the decline of lion populations (currently circa 45K). It is a FACT, Birdie a FACT that indeed lions (and fill in the black to include ANY African animal) survive BEACAUSE of hunting. Hunting gives them VALUE, in the form of currency, meat, etc for the indigenous populations. Without hunting, wildlife loses it's value and is soon reduced to near extinction.

Here is a simple fact, in EVERY country where sport hunting is allowed, virtually every specie of game not only survives but thrives and it is also a FACT, that in those countries where sport hunting is BANNED, that game populations crash. THe easiest example is Kenya where hunting was banned in 1974 because hunters were getting in the way of the ivory trade for the Kenyatta family and there, ALL game is virtually gone except for the National Parks.
Two years ago, Zambia closed hunting and soon realized a hunting ban has the EXACT opposite effect and has since re-instated hunting. Uganda is another place. Virtually closed for years, (by Idi Amin where he took pleasure in killing elephants with an M-2) and now that it's opened back up, populations are on the comeback. Mozambique is another example and I could go on. BTW, Bostwana will in all likelihood reopen hinting as they realize they are all but destroying the eco-system as a result of their 250% carrying capacity in place like the Okavango.

So please, stop the bullshit..

one

two


I'm sure other folks will be along...

Read what I wrote Jorge, the principles of what you are saying are well known, even by me.

Read the whole piece by the people at the University of Pretoria, and tell me if these wildlife scientists are liberal greenies etc....

I will state that I shoulda said nearly all lion hunting in South Africa is, at best, put and take. Doesn't mean its always easy, and from what I gather such lions can be even more of a hazard than wild ones, but the success rate for the hunter is apparently significantly higher.

I agree Botswana will have to open hunting soon, if only for elephants (makes one wonder what on earth controlled elephant numbers before the rifle). But if they don't open up lion hunting again, how is that not an opportunity to compare hunted vs. unhunted lion populations over a large area?

Most of the tagged and tracked male lions at that preserve in Zimbabwe were eventually shot by sport hunters, and the taking of mature pride males can be predicted to often cause the deposement of the surviving pride male(s) and the death of cubs.

How is any of this controversial?

Birdwatcher

"Most of the tagged and tracked male lions at that preserve in Zimbabwe were eventually shot by sport hunters, and the taking of mature pride males can be predicted to often cause the deposement of the surviving pride male(s) and the death of cubs."

Nonsense. The lion population in Zim, especially the hunting conservancies are thriving and special care is taken NOT to shot Pride males. Your statement above is complete nonsense. Go over to Accurate Reloading.com where there are true experts on the subject including Veterinarians and people who contribute and get the real facts, not from some pedagogue in RSA.

I may speak nonsense on occasion, but do try to verify facts. And actually, at this time, I do have faith in the pronouncements of the Wildlife Scientists at the University of Pretoria in RSA until cause is given otherwise, ESPECIALLY given the even-handedness of their publication (further down the same paper quoted earlier).

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073808

In Kenya, where trophy hunting has been banned since 1977, for example, protected areas now lack the buffers that are provided by hunting blocks in many other African countries, and wildlife populations have declined by 60–70% since the hunting ban [21]. While it is not possible to determine whether, or to what extent, the trophy hunting ban contributed to negative wildlife population trends, the prohibition certainly failed to improve the conservation status of wildlife (including lions) in Kenya.

In this paper, we review the extent of lion hunting in Africa, the way it is managed and identify issues which undermine sustainability.

The collar the poached lion in this case was wearing apparently was part of an twenty year study out of the University of Oxford headed by one Peter McDonald, in the case of that particular Harare preserve no one seems to be arguing the statistic of....

According to figures published by National Geographic, 34 of their 62 tagged lions died during the study period – 24 were shot by sport hunters.

Since in Zimbabwe at least, hunting at lions after dark over bait is apparently the norm, it does beggar the question of how a particular lion might be identified when trying to avoid taking pride males.

Also, since even male lions without a pride must aggregate within an alliance of at least two males to have even a chance of breeding someday, the question of the effect of trophy hunting on the other lions in the affected alliance oughtta be looked at.

Seems like the take of wild male lions (not including the take of artificially reared and released lions in RSA) may be as high as 700 male lions Continent-wide. Has this had a proven effect on lion populations?

Ya, in Zambia, where as also referenced in the above-linked article, the proportion of males in wild populations has reportedly dropped from the norm of around 30% (one in three) to 8% (one in ten), apparently due to sport hunting.

Heck Jorge, you're the one who oughtta be spouting this stuff off chapter and verse at ME.

Anyway, co-authored by that same McDonald guy, a great 2014 paper on lions actively avoiding people in cattle-ranching areas of Kenya (as opposed to Southern Tanzania where they are apparently eating people with some regularity). Seems like lions like that poached one coming off of a preserve would exhibit little avoidance behavior.

http://ewasolions.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Oriol-Cotterill-et-al-2015.pdf

Birdwatcher

20 year research project? On a wild Lion? Why waste 6 years research money?

That particular lion had been tracked for seven years, I dunno how long it had been a pride male but as you imply, it was approaching the end of a long and successful run anyway. A figure of 200 GPS collars used since the start of the twenty year study was given.

Birdwatcher

Birdie, as long as you keep spouting tree-hugging studies, I'll keep posting it's FOS. Sorry, this is BULLSHIT:

While it is not possible to determine whether, or to what extent, the trophy hunting ban contributed to negative wildlife population trends.

Bottom line: Sport hunting enhances ALL wildlife, banning destroys it. PERIOD.

Egad Jorge, did you READ that paper at all?

All the way down through the surveys and feedback from PH's in a number of African nations regarding harvesting quotas and age limits?

The whole friggin' paper is about improving the SUSTAINABILITY of lion hunting.

And here's the WHOLE passage from which you cherry picked....

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073808

In Kenya, where trophy hunting has been banned since 1977, for example, protected areas now lack the buffers that are provided by hunting blocks in many other African countries, and wildlife populations have declined by 60–70% since the hunting ban [21]. While it is not possible to determine whether, or to what extent, the trophy hunting ban contributed to negative wildlife population trends, the prohibition certainly failed to improve the conservation status of wildlife (including lions) in Kenya.

In this paper, we review the extent of lion hunting in Africa, the way it is managed and identify issues which undermine sustainability.

This is no different from any paper that would be published here in the US from a University Wildlife Department re: the management of any species.

If the authors had said "the banning of trophy hunting caused a 60-70% decline of Kenya's wildlife", in the absence of specific supporting data they would have immediately have been brought to task (and indeed may have been) under peer review for that statement.

What they could and DID say is this. Banning trophy hunting meant that it was no longer profitable for private landowners surrounding the preserves to devote their lands to accommodating hunters, and following this loss, wildlife populations on those preserves plummeted.

Call them "tree huggers" if ya want, to me they just sound like impartial wildlife scientists doing their job.

One thing it seems difficult to deny is that sport hunting has had a significant effect on the nature of the mortality affecting male lions, reducing that number by two-thirds in the studied Zambian population.

I dunno any Professional Hunters, but it is hard for me to imagine they wouldn't be all about this data more than anyone. After all it is THEIR very way of life that depends upon the preservation of these wildlife resources and they NEED hard data to counter attacks by the antis.

Birdwatcher

kee-rist, what part don't you get that ANY suggestion on banning lion hunting is bad for the species? peer review by other tree huggers? GMAFB.

Conservation Magazine, on trophy hunting as a benefit to conservation: http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/, citing this case study: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13880290590913705?journalCode=uwlp20#abstract

The IUCN on trophy hunting and conservation in Africa: https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2009-074-En.pdf

The basis of this is simple: hunting is a proper conservation tool with many decades of proven success across the spectrum of game animals, including rare species and those with low birth rates and even predators including lions. The problem, and the failure, comes when corruption and poor management (often the same thing) enter the picture.

Zimbabwe is a poster child for corruption. Put the blame where it ought to lie.

You don't need hunting to provide money for wildlife conservation, all you need are Beanie Babies!








Of course, like most things, this will fade quickly and people will stop sending money in a month when the next flavor of the month comes along.

Of course hunting money would be 'forever', not just some month long emotional based thing.


There is NO way much of this isn't being driven by a corrupt government not get enough of the cut.

OMG, my personal troll is BROWSING THE INTERNET now.....



You'd have a point if anyone was debating that.

Jorge, name-calling is no basis for an argument.

I guess I have more faith in wildlife scientists than you do, but then I've worked for a few.

Closed seasons as necessary and bag limits have long been the norm in the US, as they HAVE to be. Why should this be any different for lions?

The ONLY way lion hunting is gonna survive is with iron-clad data and completely defensible harvest.

Birdwatcher

I have not called you names. Only thing I've said the ALL the articles you quoted are written by folks who are AGAINST hunting and try and couch their arguments in Global-Warming-like cooked data.
And WHATEVER makes you think lion hunting (and for that matter ALL African hunting is not under strict quota and seasons and in the case of lions even stricter aging criteria? Where are you getting this notion there is open season and quotas on lion???? Well, that is what WILL happen when hunting is banned and the wogs get to run the whole show.

In Tanzania for example, the aging determination is so strict that failure to adhere is immediate cause for license revocation.

There ARE closed seasons and bag limits on lions, as cited by multiple wildlife scientists in papers you refuse to read - that's what the quota system is and how it works. When management DOESN'T work is when corruption interferes with proper management (case in point; Zimbabwe). The only way any hunting works as a conservation tool is with properly implemented game management; corruption destroys these efforts.

Ergo, the problem isn't with the management of the game but with the corruption of the managers.

Why, how ever could you know these things, jorge? Have you "browsed" them sufficiently and cherry picked a single study upon which you base the entirety of your argument?

LOL. For the last fifteen years, I've been fortunate enough to have gone on safari, personally know quite a few PHs who are also well-versed and educated on the subject of not only hunting but animal husbandry (Kevin Robertson comes to mind as well as Don Heath) and many, many Americans who contribute substantial financial support (in addition to MILLIONS in trophy and other fees) in ensuring wildlife survival. So yeah, bit more than internet browsing reading articles from the pocket-protector crowd with an anti-hunting agenda.

But, how can you possibly top this?

Stop, you just made me laugh so hard I farted and my secretary heard it....

Quoted out of context again <"shrug">

Here's a little hint, Birdwatcher -

Wildlife conservation is rather (what was your word....) "complicated". Management protocols have to take into account a myriad of factors ranging from the biology of the subject animal to interactions with other species including their biology to habitat management, human interactions, and all manner of other factors. One study may find one issue, and another something different, because each study has specific study points, objectives, questions, and biases. When you factor in the human element (especially corruption), everything can go out the window.

Your basis of your entire position on one study group is fundamentally flawed as a basis for understanding game management, especially management of game so volatile in population dynamics as an apex predator, and even more compounded by the extraordinary level of corruption in the human management sphere in that study area. Looking at other studies would give a better grounding and lead to the conclusion that there are a multitude of factors in play, with hunting overall being a net positive yet corruption and vis a vis improper management being the single largest (and wholly negative) factor on the entire program and species management regime.

I'll see your "one summer supervising coeds studying woodpeckers" and raise you baccalaureate education and research in wildlife science; a master's degree in resource management; and game management program design, implementation, and enforcement. Oh, and unlike you, I do know a few PHs.

You have no evidence for that.



*SIGH*.... I never did. It might help if you read the papers...

This one time at bird camp....

Oh, it's very much in context as it underlies your understanding (or lack thereof) of the entire situation at hand.

Here's the thread that quote came from, and showing all the proper context: https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...il_-_Now_for_some_biology..#Post10237092

You stated you don't know schit about lions but posit your woodpecker summer as enough of a qualifier to distill out the core of the entire "Cecil" issue in the (as always, bolded) excerpt you pulled from the lone study group you basis your entire position upon.

The context is that you don't know jack schit about what you're talking about.

Your words were about needing closed seasons and bag limits; inferring that there were none on lions.



As for reading the papers - that's rich coming from Mr. "I browsed this issue" and found a single study to support his predetermined position.

The only way HUNTING works is by eliminating (as much as possible) the corruption of the humans involved in the management of the game animals. The problem in Zimbabwe isn't the hunting; it's the corruption.

Sean, you permanently crossed over the bounds of imbecility when you brung something I had posted elsewhere here so that I could figuratively get my massed kicked, I guess.

And now as usual, when that didn't happen you are piling on words and words, quoting me out of context and raising arguments never contested.

I try and stay out of internet p&ssing matches mostly on account of they are boring to me and everyone else, and certainly on THIS specialized board, where you brought over this thread in the first place.

But, you do seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me personally.

I don't believe he has one with you, personally. I believe he has one with liberals, which is a good thing.

I've no obsession with you; you simply can't help but make a damned fool of yourself by spouting off about stuff you know nothing about.

I brought it over here because (perish the thought) the folks in the African forum might actually know more about the subject than someone who simply "browsed" it. You continually harp on a single study group as the basis for your entire argument on game management (a subject you know nothing about) of a species you know nothing about. Folks on this subforum - those that hunt Africa - are likely to actually know something about the subject and MIGHT just be able to educate you, assuming you're intellectually honest enough to actually learn.

I quoted you specifically IN CONTEXT as relates to your comprehension of game management studies. As for piling on; if pointing out the inadequacies and inaccuracies of your position is "piling on", so be it.

You haven't a f'king clue what you're talking about, and it shows.

The fact that what you wrote (in bold) implies there arent' any seems pretty clear. No evidence they are anti-hunting? Please! since you pride yourself on being a researcher, why don't you look into who funds these kooks, but on second thought, never mind since you'll just whine about being taken out of context, or some other bullshit excuse.

How many safaris I'm all of those years?

Then stay out of topics you know nothing about, and ESPECIALLY quoting sources with a clear agenda and secondly if you find them (sic) boring, why do you persist in constant reclama by drivel?

I disagree that the guy has an agenda, he has never condemned properly regulated hunting, and the RSA University source was on ways to conserve the sustainability of hunting.

Me? Liberal?

OK, I did not bring this topic to this board, anymore than I'd bring it to "handguns" "backpacking" or any other specialized forum where serious inquiries are discussed.

If I'd have even thought or a minute I wouldn't have responded here at all but just redirected it back to where it belongs, on the other forum.

Those wishing to continue are more than welcome to take it up on the "'fire" where there are a couple of related treads and the original one.

Birdwatcher

I brought it here, for the reasons stated that people on this forum - those who hunt Africa - were likely to have knowledge and information on the issue that others (especially you) do not have.

Two, fourteen day safaris.

Just a few names for Birdy to "browse"...


Paula White
John Jackson
Peter Lindsey
Guy Balme
Rosemary Groom
Andy Loveridge
Luke Hunter
Philippe Chardonette
Coleen Begg
Paul Trethowan



http://www.hunterproud.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Bubye-Valley-11.mov

Several of them have been cited already, even though he refuses to acknowledge that.

I'm not going to get into this pissing match, but this statement is absolutely true...though I would add that TCM is among the top of the culprits and the money that trophy hunting generates gives Africans an incentive to stop poaching. It sucks that money is the motivating factor (both for the poaching and the incentive to stop it), but it is what it is...

Zim just rescinded the ban on cats. I knew it would not last.

I don't why you think it sucks...? Money is necessary for conservation, period. Look at our wildlife conservation programs here in North America: they are funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing licenses, taxes on ammunition and sporting goods, etc. Just because the money comes from domestic wallets doesn't alter the fact that maintaining wild lands and wildlife costs money, and the only people willing to pay for it are hunters and fishermen.

I realize money is necessary for conservation. I pay way more than my fair share for tags or tag chances in 10 or so states every year.

I'm just saying that it sucks that money is the only reason Africans care about not letting elephants, lions, rhinos etc. go extinct. I am sure some exceptions exist, but for the most part Africans, especially those outside of South Africa and Namibia don't give a $hit about conservation.

Why the surprise?? Contrary to popular belief, the American Indian was NOT a conservationist either. Well before us palefaces slaughtered the buffalo, the Northeastern woods Indians nearly completely destroyed furred game and deer from the forests because of their own desire for European trade goods. Why should native Africans be any better????

I'm not surprised, at all. Is that question for me? Did my post convey that I was surprised at how Africans generally don't care about conservation? If it did I didn't mean it to.

Yes, we're on the same page here... you're right, it DOES suck that Africans don't give a rat's ass about wildlife. On the other hand, if I had been born and raised there under the awful conditions most Africans endure, wildlife conservation would probably by pretty low on my personal list as well.

Yep, and I can't blame them.

I've been to quite a few $hit hole countries, and people are way more concerned with surviving and putting food on the table than anything else.

Their culture is different as its no big deal to dump their used engine oil right onto the ground and not think twice...

You might have seen this posted by a couple of folks over on the 'Fire...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html?_r=0


Best article yet I've seen on native attitudes towards wildlife.

It is true everywhere that people are most in favor of conservation when the costs don't accrue to them personally.

I've met people who were losing their crops to elephants at the time. And personally seen the effects of crop failures (in that case drought), it ain't pretty.

Birdwatcher

Let's look at this. Male lions do there breeding between ages 3-6 for the most part. A few might hold on a season or two more, but that's it. As they are forced out by younger, stronger males, any cubs are often killed so that the new Alpha male can start his bloodline. This strengthens the and diversifies the bloodline.

What happens to the male lions that are forced out? They don't breed anymore, and they have given their contribution to the propagantion of the species, so what to they do?

They sleep, they eat, but they no longer are breeding. Eventually, they will get old and weak, they will get injured fighting, and eventually the hyenas will bring them down and eat them alive.

I want all the Greenies out there to contemplate that - eaten alive.

Now then, tell me how taking a 6+ year old lionthreatens the survival of the species? Their job is done and the next generation is doing the breeding. Taking those lions instead of waiting for nature to take them has no effect on the species.

You are wasting your time with him Jeff. He continues to cite fixed studies on lion hunting, stating that hunting in Zambia and Tanzania negatively affected lion populations, again not discerning between sport hunting and indiscriminate killing by the locals to control them.

Great article:

So let me lay out some facts for you...


- Without hunting lions have no economic value for the local people or ranchers. In fact they're a giant menacing pain in the ass since they tend to eat the locals' cattle as well as occasionally the locals themselves. There's really no upside at all to having an apex predator like a lion prowling around your village or ranch; only bad things can happen. Yes, there are photo-safaris but unless you're near tourist areas and are set up for it, there's not much money in this. So the reality is that without any economic incentive to keep the lions around, the locals end up driving them out or just poisoning them.

And here to paraphrase Jack Dunphy the alternative to allowing hunting is not perfection - it's the alternative. With no hunting at all you won't get a Lion King-Simba happy existence on the savannah, instead you'll see a slow gradual extinction of lions as a species due to loss of habitat and eradication by humans. Lions will not die out from hunting - rather it will be because none of the locals want them around or care enough about their continued existence to protect them. Ultimately the lions will live or die by whether the local people allow lions to coexist with them.


But with controlled trophy hunting, the lions suddenly do have economic value. Because the hunting is so strictly limited hunters will pay a lot to be allowed to take a trophy - $30,000 and up. And $30,000 goes a long way in Africa. This money is split between the land owner, the local villagers, and the government. For the land owner and villagers this makes up on any losses they might have suffered from the lions, and it also means that they have a strong incentive to protect and maintain the local lions e.g. maintaining water pools, not putting up fences, watching for poachers, etc. The money from hunting is a major source of revenue for some remote villages. The revenue to the government helps pay for full-time rangers, park wardens and equipment to protect the lion populations.


- Africa is a huge place. Bigger than most people can really imagine. So to say that lions are endangered is both correct and false. Depending on where you are in Africa lions may be endangered or they may be actually over-populated. Due to their territorial nature both may be true - too many lions in one area but very few in another nearby region. Logistically it's not possible to move lions hundreds of miles away to open areas so you have to manage the population locally. And that means allowing controlled hunting.


- Adult male lions do not die peacefully of old age. They tend to die from injuries sustained in battles with younger males or from starvation from being driven out of their territory. Both of which tend to be unpleasant, lingering deaths. This is the reality of male lion life. Also only a few breeding males are needed in an area to maintain and grow a lion population. So a mature adult male like Cecil who was close to the average life span of a male lion in the wild (10-14 years) is the most expendable member of any lion population.


Zimbabwe has a population of lions estimated around 1,680 and on average 10-40 lions a year are taken through hunting which is approximately 1-2% of the population - less than the natural death rate of adult lions. But the permit fees from each hunted lion make a huge difference to the overall lion population. This isn't just theory - there are empirical results backing this up with elephant populations:


Anti-hunting groups succeeded in getting Kenya to ban all hunting in 1977. Since then, its population of large wild animals has declined between 60 and 70 percent. The country's elephant population declined from 167,000 in 1973 to just 16,000 in 1989. Poaching took its toll on elephants because of their damage to both cropland and people. Today Kenya wildlife officials boast a doubling of the country's elephant population to 32,000, but nearly all are in protected national parks where poaching can be controlled. With only 8 percent of its land set aside as protected areas, it is no wonder that wildlife in general and elephants in particular have trouble finding hospitable habitat.

But in Zimbabwe controlled hunting was allowed and hunting revenues shared through the CAMPFIRE program:

The numbers attest to the program's success. Ten years after the program began, wildlife populations had increased by 50 percent. By 2003, elephant numbers had doubled from 4,000 to 8,000. The gains have not just been for wildlife, however. Between 1989 and 2001, CAMPFIRE generated more than $20 million in direct income, the vast majority of which came from hunting. During that period, the program benefitted an estimated 90,000 households and had a total economic impact of $100 million.

The results go beyond the CAMPFIRE areas. Between 1989 and 2005, Zimbabwe's total elephant population more than doubled from 37,000 to 85,000, with half living outside of national parks. Today, some put the number as high as 100,000, even with trophy hunters such as Parsons around. All of this has occurred with an economy in shambles, regime uncertainty, and mounting socio-political challenges.

- Note that only hunters with proper permits and PH guides are allowed to hunt lions. The PH is responsible for obtaining all the permits and knowing all the local restrictions on hunting and knowing which animals can and can't be legally taken. So Dr. Walter Palmer was completely dependent on the PH and local guide when it came to shooting a lion. So if Cecil was shot illegally, the fault is all on the PH and crew. It's ironic that the person facing the most hate from all this (Palmer) is in fact the one most innocent of any charges of poaching.


So the bottom line is that if you actually care about the survival of lions as a species, you should support controlled trophy hunting. Hunters like Walter Palmer who paid $55,000 for the hunting permit have done far, far more to actually preserve real world lions in Africa than all of the hand-wringing celebrities and any of you reading this post. Ironically the weeping over Cecil and calls to ban all hunting of lions in Africa out of First World emotionalism may end up actually dooming them as a species. But everyone would still get to feel awesomely smug about their love of lions and general moral superiority from the comfort of their armchair .

Let us presume we are both on the side of science and solid data.

Most times when I post stuff on these boards its for general interest.

This "Birdwatcher is against lion hunting" mantra has been a flat puzzle to me from the beginning.

I posted links from the pertinent wildlife researchers indicating that in Zambia the proportion of male lions in hunted populations had fallen to 10% as opposed to an expected 30% of the population, and that an over-take of males in Tanzania was believed to be responsible for a decline in hunted lion populations there.

These are the sort of researchers and research projects that wildlife bag limits are designed around in the first place.

From one of these papers it was pointed out that a major benefit of legal hunting was the formation of privately-owned hunting preserves around the protected public lands, these apparently forming a buffer layer, patrolled by people who benefit directly from hosting hunts, between the wildlife on the preserves and the local populace who might otherwise poach.

I had never seen that mentioned here and posted that too.

Take me to task if you wish on this; having experienced corruption first-hand over there during three-years' residence living at the mud-wall village level, I questioned how much of the hefty trophy fees actually reach the grass roof level as intended.

And I wondered if providing goods and services for 100+ non-hunting eco-tourists for every one safari company-supported hunter (which companies in Zimbabwe apparently buy most of their supplies in South Africa) might actually benefit the locals more than co-opted and mis-directed trophy fees.

In another great link posted over on the 'Fire, THE Richard Leakey hisself (I got to hear him speak once), who would probably otherwise like the lion researchers be labelled an "antihunting POS" here, emphatically states otherwise.

Apparently the tourist lodges and such ain't benefitting the locals, and do create a noxious footprint. Question answered.

Birdwatcher

I apologize for this diversion if it is but it is at least tangentially related to the topic at hand. I'm truly seeking some insight from others here with African experience; I do have some thoughts but by no means have settled into any firm view.

I'll take Ghana as a a example if that's fair. Here is a country with some fifty years plus of independence from European rule. It does have the veneer of Christianity due to the Portugeese slave trade in centuries past and is largely without religious strife at the moment. In spite of that history of slave traders it is largely sympathetic to Christianity claiming a majority, say 75% claiming Christianity on paper. Yet the concept of stewardship (Christianity is the original and true Green Movement in the best sense of the phrase) is mostly completely lost on them.

Those fifty years of independence have Accra looking apocalyptic with scores of half-finished windowless, grey structures apparently abandoned midway through construction. Infrastructure is a maybe with pot holed roads and traffic lights working half time. There are large slums resting on garbage dumps with never quenched smoldering sending plumes of smoke up between dwellings. Water apparently is delivered in the city in liter size plastic bags which are strewn over the landscape and seashore. Garbage is everywhere in the city setting.

It's not that there aren't bright individuals. I know native Ghanian physicians who went to Russian medical schools after first having to learn Russian! Not an easy run-up there.

The vast majority are uneducated as free, public education stops with the ninth grade IIRC and are peddling pineapple, tilapia, pencils or what have you.. Ramshackle huts are everywhere along with the ubiquitous cooking fires much as five hundred years ago. This is even more the rule in-country where feral dogs roam in pack; rusty, banged up vehicles lie in the ditches where they died.

Ghana does have some natural resources such as rubber trees in expansive forests, gold, and raising tilapia commercially is huge for world markets. So there is potential for some wealth.

My question: and I will be deemed racist by some because of it. Is there something about the black race and inherent in their body politic that cripples them so with self rule? Or that never allows them above a very low threshold of modernity? We could look at many examples of this, Zim being perhaps iconic for this, for total collapse on most important measures of the quality of life.

Namibia is an exception--yet--as strong German influence is still present after only twenty some years of independence. The RSA probably too after centuries of Dutch rule but there are many troublesome signs developing in the RSA since independence. But on the whole in Sub Sahara Africa life is difficult, tenuous, and primitive for tha vast majority.

This of course directly affects all wild game as those living the subsistence life style in the bush are concerned with what protein can they next put over the fire or sell without giving a a wit generally of any game population five years down the road.

Why do "black nations" languish so?

Again, please pardon this side road topic.

I guess I didn't finish my thought about the collared lions. If they are out of the breeding cycle, who cares if they are taken by JG from Midland or a pack of wild dogs? At least JG would have contributed something to the conservation and anti poaching. At least JG would have been able to honor the memory of the lion years after he would have otherwise been fertilizer.

Lions don't live to be 70 years old and write memoirs. The recent taking of the 13 year old lion is a joke, that lion is a geezer and Mother Nature would have taken care of him within a year. A 13-14 year old wild lion is rare.

I don't see your posts as an attack on hunting, but some questions you pose the anti's have co-oped and perverted for their gain.

In Africa, everything must pay its own way. Maybe this will help someone out there who has never been to Africa or doesn't understand what dynamics are at play.

1.) Dangerous game and people cannot co-habitat. Lions eat livestock, elephants eat crops. If the wildlife eats the crops and livestock, people starve. People aren't going to starve without a fights, so they will poach (KILL OFF) the dangerous game and eat the edible game they can readily poach.

2.) The population of Africa has exploded. There is a whole lot less of "wild unsettled" land. Too damn many people. As people encroach on the range of wild game, you get #1 above.

3.) Wild, unsettled Africa now largely only exists in National Parks and Game Management Areas (GMAs). Most of these GMSs boarder the national parks. They serve as a buffer between settled areas and the park. You cannot have settlements right up to the edge of the park boundaries without #1 above.

GMAs allow animals to move in and out of the park without immediately getting hammered by the locals for food, and it prevents them from raiding right outside the park for food every night and running back in before dawn for protection.

The GMAs protect the animals and protect the people. Without them, more poaching, less animals. Conservation can carefully control animal populations both in the GMAs and INSIDE the park by setting hunting quotes for the GMAs. Overpopulation of let's say elephants will force some out of the park. Without GMAs, they become crop raiders and get poached by the score. In GMAs, they can be controlled.

Hunting and GMAs also fund the Game Guards and the anti poaching efforts in an effective way.

As to eco tourism and photo's only? It doesn't do much to maintain stabile populations. An area can only sustain so many before the vegetation gets decimated. Especially true of elephants. They can wreck the vegetation of an area when there is drought or overpopulation.

George, aside the fact the WHEEL was unknown in Sub-Saharan Africa until the 1500s and no evidence of a written language (as opposed to pictographs), maybe JJHack will chime in and verify his story about how he built framed wooden windows and doors for his employees' homes to keep not only the weather, but critters out. He left for the US and when he came back six months later, ALL the wood had been stripped from the frames and burned as firewood when all the had to do was walk another twn yards into the Mopane bush and get all the wood they wanted. The operative words here was the "walk ten yards"....

Jorge, that's my exactly my point. Obvious it's s complex thing but I guess the bottom line question would be why as a race are they not more industrious.

Birdwatcher will be along soon...

Dunno.

Jorge's explanation is a simple one that begins with the Germans near the top.

I see people as individuals, race being irrelevant on religious, biological and legal grounds.

In the classroom kids over there were far more mature and wanting to excel in their studies so as to get out of there.

Personalities in the classroom were pretty much the same as over here (extrovert/introvert, class clown etc...), some were smarter than me.

I will say that most University graduates, especially doctors, left to live overseas, for the same reasons we would. When I was there there were more Ghanaian doctors practicing in Germany than there were in Ghana.

Likewise, we Peace Corps teaches were brought in to alleviate a shortage created in part by Ghanaian teachers leaving to teach in Nigeria, the Naira being worth far more than the Cedi. Plus we would live in places most educated professional from there would not.

Actually Germans and Jews. Yeah so next time we need a Missile Program, we'll be sure to go to Zimbabwe to look for Rocket Scientists. How about that wheel and written language, not to mention the ripping of the window frames anecdote.

The Peace Corps was another of those do-good liberal programs that did more harm than good. Here we came to places for us to tell them, hey, if u get educated you can be just like us in the US which of course all it did was create false hopes and allowed the Soviet Block to say "hey if you let us in there we'll take it all from the evil rich Europeans and Americans and give it all to you", you know, like democrats... Oh, and you let those Ghanan doctors work on you... 200,000 years ago we all started the same....

You could put a trash dumpster on every block and they would continue to throw their trash in the street. That's the way they are.

Birdwatcher will be along in a bit...

Birdwatcher doesn't know whether to wind his ass or scratch his watch on this subject. In that other thread he said he was finished responding anyway, didn't he?

He's like TRH...LAST WORD

Birdy,

A few things here I just have to comment on. Tanzania has some big maned lions, especially around the Serengeti, so a cat with a Rock Star hairdo is not necessarily a canned RSA lion.

Next, note the comment about ending hunting, both sport and native due to habitat loss and ILLEGAL hunting. That illegal stuff is poaching, much of it for meat. That is what decimates the numbers. Snares are indiscriminate. I've seen its effects first hand in Zambia. The locals use game as their own grocery store and regulations be damned. Was in on the capture of a dozen poachers in one day. Four here, two there, then another three - that sort of thing. They didn't care that poaching was illegal. When caught, they kinda shrugged it off.

Lastly, I don't see what a 21 day minimum for a lion hunt does for the numbers except to make them very, very expensive. That limits those hunts to the ultra rich, and I guess fills the government coffers.

I'm happy you think it had any effect one way or another.

What it did for a lot of folks in the sticks in those places was to give them a chance to meet actual Americans, a common comment was "we like you Americans, only your government we don't like", but then, that probably applies to lots of places that never had Peace Corps.

What it did for me and thousands of others is give them a chance to live in those places, under those circumstances.

What it was for me specifically was a splendid three-year adventure. Back then before cell phones you really did disappear from the world at your work site for months at a time (you had to come out at least quarterly for a 5cc shot of hepatitis gamma gobulin). In my case no running water, no electricity, nothing but local foods, no regular contact with outsiders or outside support.

I did get sick, everyone did to some extent, and I weighed fifteen pounds less for the duration while there than even my high school weight (where I had been an actual distance runner ).

In that setting, I was a good teacher, teaching to British "O" level curricula and standards out there on a chalkboard in the boonies. (I learned to write with both hands, there were no textbooks but mine, I practically had to write one on the chalk board).

When working with the vaccination team I can state for sure that several extra infants and kids got vaccinated thanks to my personal input.

All of that, and with all the truly remarkable stuff I got to do, and with the coup and associated hardships we had to endure, it totally rocked

Coming back to the 'States again was much harder than going. No one here could relate.

Anyways, that's what I got out of it. Make of it whatever you want.

It IS different today, the world is a harsher place, attacks on American women are more frequent everywhere, Radical Islam has penetrated even West Africa, and worst of all Peace Corps gives you friggin' satellite cell phones as they must so they can track and communicate with you because they are responsible for your safety.

Heck, even your mom can call you anytime (as mine prob'ly would have done pretty much every day )

Birdwatcher

Well hey, thanks for a reasoned response.

It is a puzzle to me why Botswana would shut down most sport hunting in response to poaching depleting antelope populations. I could be wrong, but having known some Botswanans, I had the impression that Botswana had its act together, relative to the surrounding Black African nations anyway.

Casual snaring to supplement the diet or for local sale seems damnably hard to prevent. It was widely practiced where I was too, as a normal and traditional part of subsistence farming, and what was captured was typically killed and eaten, down to the rodent-size level. In fact little kids would customarily harvest the village weaver bird colonies for grown nestlings much as our kids might collect wild apples. One evening in a remote village, a freshly snared and still warm porcupine was butchered and cooked for myself and a buddy before our eyes (it was so strong-tasting as to be almost inedible, but good manners dictated we eat of it).

The twenty-one day thing puzzled me too, maybe that recommendation was to allow local lion populations to be thoroughly canvassed before choosing the most appropriate target. But then, if that is the case, why shouldn't the PH's be allowed to do that independently (as I presume they do already) before the client comes in to shoot?

Birdwatcher

I have heard that Botswanna was paid off by the WWF and other Anti's that convinced them that photo safaris would solve all the problems.

The poaching I described above was organized meat hunting, complete with drying racks and hundreds of pounds of meat. They would pile it up on bicycles and walk the bikes out of the parks and GMA to a road and get picked up and the meat went to market.

The 21 day thing in most counties is a nod to revenue. Cats are glamour game and the allocations are small. These countries have them, and want the hunters in country spending $, so they make it that way. Also, must give the PH's a reasonable number of days to produce one. Takes the pressure off.

Hard to imagine now but I did not have a camera while in Africa (this was way before digital, and even those who had 'em took photos only sparingly, sources of film often being far away).

North of the Mission Hospital where I worked school holidays was a sparsely populated ninety-mile stretch of plains reaching to the next paved road, the middle fifty miles of this stretch being wooded Savannah devoid of even dirt tracks for vehicles. Even the Mission Hospital had no accurate maps as to what was back there.

But, like I expect most wild areas in Africa it was exploited by the surrounding locals. In the patches of forest where oil palms grew, the fermented sap of this tree was distilled into crude alcohol, and poachers killed and dried "bush meat", both dried meat and drums of alcohol being carried out on the heads of porters who made a poor living that way.

Me and a buddy of mine took a week to cross it on foot, in the rainy season so we would have both cloud cover and water. We brought little food, depending upon the customary hospitality of any anticipated locals. We did pack bags of ordinary sugar (bought ahead of time at a supermarket in neighboring Togo) in our backpacks to give out as gifts in return for lodging and hospitality, sugar being a valued commodity back in the sticks.

To cross at all we first had to ask permission via the bush telegraph through an African acquaintance who lived at the edge of the plains, and then wait each day of the trip for people going in our same general direction as we would otherwise have become hopelessly lost.

Walking on established footpaths was the only option as the elephant grass (that was what we called it) was at that season both dense and sharp-edged, crowding the path, about five feet in height.

Fortunately my buddy did have a camera.

Anyhoo... this is my favorite Africa photo of the few I have...

A poachers' collection of huts where we stayed one night, somewhere in the boonies, Ghana, 1981. These guys brung out the best they had for the photo...



This is the best blow=up I can get of the low res scan of my old print. The gun is a Greener smoothbore on a Martini-Henry action. These guys reloaded round lead balls over black powder in the brass shells.



Besides running lines of snares what they said they did is go out with miner's carbide lanterns at night, spotlighting game.

That trip was the closest I personally ever came to wild elephants, or was told so. At one point we came to a place where it looked like two large objects had pushed through the grass across the savannah, crossing and travelling perpendicular to our footpath and passing on out of sight. The guy showing us the way, a fast-walking poacher carrying a gun (a crude locally produced percussion muzzleloader) and with a small black and white dog trotting at his heels, told us elephants had passed that way the night before.

Note the long sleeves, the most valued article of clothing back there that we saw were London Fog raincoats and the like, the tall grass crowding the paths was friggin' sharp, and a substantial raincoat gave good protection against the grass as well as conferring some protection against tsetses and other biting flies.

The poachers told us they generally didn't mess with the elephants, not having anything big enough to shoot one.

At the time remnant populations of both elephants and lions were said to still exist in that area, I am sure they are gone now though.

Birdwatcher

You say race is irrelevant in regard to general qualities yet place "Germans near the top."

The best and brightest leaving isn't the complete answer either as this is a centuries' old phenomenon.

Anyway, I have digressed enough.

No, it was Jorge says that about the Germans, I have problems with any theory that doesn't elevate the Native Irish to Master Race status

And the "best and brightest"; to me the salient point is that there IS a best and brightest. Like that former Zimbawean village boy now studying Biochemistry in university here and wondering why the heck Americans are all bent out of shape about a dead lion.

Others see "races", I see a crapload of individuals.

Birdwatcher

Man is a product of heredity and environment.

I've been all over the world, South America, Africa, Asia. You will find the poor, peasant, natives living in primitive conditions throughout.

Part is poverty, part is IQ, part is race, part is religion. There is just a certain segment of the population that doesn't have the gray matter upstairs.

All of the underdeveloped countries, and some developed, have similar circumstances - certain groups like the aborigines, primitives, still partially nomadic.

I'm not as bashful about sounding racist. There IS something to believing some races are just not as capable as others.

That is EXACTLY what happened and they are already re-considering, particularly with the amount of destruction the overpopulated elephants are doing and of course, since there is a LOT LESS money to pay rangers due to the photo safaris which bring in about 1/10th of what sport hunting does, the poachers are running rampant.

Could centuries of malnutrition have contributed to the lack of or development of intelligence or higher IQ in some of these areas?

Problem solving is non existent and instead the round peg just falls through the square hole.

The experiment involved 5 Obama son's, a cage, a banana, a ladder and, crucially, a water hose.

The 5 Obama son's would be locked in a cage, after which a banana was hung from the ceiling with, fortunately for the Obama son's (or so it seemed…), a ladder placed right underneath it.

Of course, immediately, one of the Obama son's would race towards the ladder, intending to climb it and grab the banana. However, as soon as he would start to climb, the sadist (euphemistically called “scientist”) would spray the Obama son with ice-cold water. In addition, however, he would also spray the other four Obama son's…

When a second Obama son's was about to climb the ladder, the sadist would, again, spray the Obama son with ice-cold water, and apply the same treatment to its four fellow inmates; likewise for the third climber and, if they were particularly persistent (or dumb), the fourth one. Then they would have learned their lesson: they were not going to climb the ladder again – banana or no banana.

In order to gain further pleasure or, I guess, prolong the experiment, the sadist outside the cage would then replace one of the Obama son's with a new one. As can be expected, the new guy would spot the banana, think “why don’t these idiots go get it?!” and start climbing the ladder. Then, however, it got interesting: the other four Obama son's, familiar with the cold-water treatment, would run towards the new guy – and beat him up. The new guy, blissfully unaware of the cold-water history, would get the message: no climbing up the ladder in this cage – banana or no banana.

When the beast outside the cage would replace a second Obama son with a new one, the events would repeat themselves – Obama son runs towards the ladder; other Obama son's beat him up; new Obama son does not attempt to climb again – with one notable detail: the first new Obama son, who had never received the cold-water treatment himself (and didn’t even know anything about it), would, with equal vigour and enthusiasm, join in the beating of the new guy on the block.
When the researcher replaced a third Obama son, the same thing happened; likewise for the fourth until, eventually, all the Obama son's had been replaced and none of the ones in the cage had any experience or knowledge of the cold-water treatment.

Then, a new Obama son was introduced into the cage. It ran toward the ladder only to get beaten up by the others. Yet, this monkey turned around and asked “why do you beat me up when I try to get the banana?” The other four Obama son's stopped, looked at each other slightly puzzled and, finally, shrugged their shoulders: “Don’t know. But that’s the way we do things around Fergason”…

The "normal" ratio of adult male lions in a wild lion population is around 30%. In Zambia in those lion populations protected and sustained by hunting it reportedly got down to 10%.

The question arises as to what is the normal annual mortality rate of male lions as this directly determines how many survive to age six ie. legitimately huntable males.

Given the sex ratio at birth is close to 50/50, obviously about half of all male lion cubs do not survive long enough to make that normal 30% of the population, likely most of this mortality occurs shortly after leaving the birth pride.

OK given that countable 30% male of the whole lion population probably starts at around age two. If we assume a mortality rate for adult male lions not owning a pride at 25% per year (likely an underestimate of mortality) only about one in three wild male lions out there would be in the huntable age 6 and above age bracket.

If male lion mortality is greater than 25% annually, the proportion of age 6+ males would be correspondingly less, maybe as low as the 10% take recommended by Oxford University people.

Obviously, if wild male lion numbers fell by 2/3 from 30% of the whole lion population to 10% of the whole lion population as occurred in Zambia, more than the 6+ age bracket was being taken.

Birdwatcher

Birdy,

Your conclusions are inaccurate because your assumptions are speculative.

You "assume" 25% fatalities per year among male lions with no evidence. In fact I suspect the mortality rate, after they become adults, is very low for a few years and then accelerates as they acquire or attempt to conquer prides, and gets still higher as they get old.

Further, a reduction from 30% of the population to 10% doesn't withstand the reality test. I don't know about Botswana, but the statistics for Zimbabwe-the total number of male lions taken by hunters each year compared with the total estimated population--come nowhere close to accounting for 20% of the estimated total population, whether male, female, cubs or LGBT lions are counted.

If you haven't read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, you should. It's not considered a politically incorrect book, for reasons that escape me...

Indeed, out of general interest, I've been looking all over for survivorship curves for male (as opposed to female) lions. Surely young adult male lions are most often obliged to occupy the most marginal of habitats.

The Jouberts, those famous Belgian filmmakers out of Botswana, claim only one in eight males make it to "adulthood", however they define that.

But, if one is out searching for a 6+ year old male lion, and one finds twice as many younger male lions in the whole area population, then my speculative mortality stats would hold approximately true overall.

Anyhoo... the 10% figure (also quoted as 8%) comes from a hunted lion population in Zambia.

Birdwatcher

Ya know Doc, and this is gonna sound ironic coming from me, I find Guns, Germs and Steel to be speculative

I find historical facts to be on point, hence, we didn't use scientists from Africa for NASA....

Zambia Shmambia! In Zimbabwe the number of lions taken annually by trophy hunters is nowhere near enough to account for only one of eight reaching adulthood.

When I hunted out of Camp Mukanga in Dande North, we figured there were four prides of lions, based on tracks and evidence from our trial cameras. We could guesstimate how many were in each pride. That many lions needed to eat 765 buffalo each year, we calculated. The place was crawling with buffalo and the young male lions, which form their own small prides, certainly did not have to live in any "marginal areas."

And, contrary to the opinion of some, the PH did not know where all of them were or have them pinned down to specific places.

First off, congrats on some wonderful experiences which I'm sure are the envy of most here

On the topic of wild lion population demographics, somewhere all of this data must have been compiled, it is hard for me to believe lions haven't been exhaustively studied.

One would think that prides of females, in addition to having good survivorship once past the cub stage, would be expected to over time eventually increase to the point where they occupy all the best habitat, said prides accompanied by dominant pride males. But apparently your experience has been there was also room for groups of bachelor males in those same areas.

Another point to consider is that for the take to be sustainable, the harvest of 6+ year-old males could not exceed the annual recruitment of males into that same age class. If the annual take were only a fraction of the whole population of 6+ year-old males, but exceeded even marginally the number of new males entering that age class each year, then the population would decline.

I can't think of any other species where the take of some individuals also affects the survivorship of the other individuals in the social group. There has GOT to be a good and current source book for all of this data out there somewhere, compiling recent studies, if there ain't, then someone should write one.

Within Zimbabwe, from what I understand, the hunting of lions at the Hwange Preserve where the now infamous 'Cecil' was shot, had been suspended previously for a few years due to a perceived overtake and subsequent decline in lion populations.

Again, congrats on some awesome hunts

Birdwatcher

I do not believe anyone could browse enough on the internet to be a African Hunter which knows it all. There is something about experiencing the hunt for your self which could never be learned on the internet. Pictures are worth a thousand words but experience is worth millions.

This is pretty well done IMO.

Absolutely YES.

I thought so, too, and have two questions to those in the know:

1) Was the lion hunted by Dr. Palmer an "ideal huntable male lion" by the definition given by DSC as "at least six years of age and not known to head a pride or be part of a coalition heading a pride with dependent cubs.”?

2) Was the lion hunted by Dr. Palmer hunted in accordance to for example the Safari Club International Hunter Code of ethics?