2 Great Lions

[Mike1979]

Personally I wouldnt want to shoot a lion unless it was trying to eat me but thats personal preference alone. Its legal to do so therefore if people want to do it then crack on. Not going to go into the financial side and benefit to local economy etc as I dont feel well enough informed to comment

 

[norsk]

So is it wrong to sell the chance to shoot a problem cat?

If its a problem,then it needs to be solved.Not retailed.

 

[shakey jake]

If its a problem,then it needs to be solved.Not retailed.

Ive got to dissagree some what, if a lion has no value cant see it lasting.
I dont see why cats shouldnt be hunted by paying but other wildlife can be

 

[Emilio]

If its a problem,then it needs to be solved.Not retailed.

Retailing it solves the problem, so what is yours?

 

[Selous]

I disagree.

If currently the game farms are made to stop Safari's then yes. The locals will eat them all or the Cattle will push them out.

However,if the game farms are paid and the key here is money,to keep managable animal populations then the species could continue to be preserved. Who and how is going to pay I dont know,because currently the main revenue stream is hunting for sport.

Of all the billions that disappear into Africa from the West ,wildlife funding should be an easy one to get the public behind? Remember the "Cecill the Lion" debacle?

The answer to your question is that no one will pay for game farmers in RSA (for example) to keep game. If they did so then hunting would not need to be used as a management tool to generate revenue. So following this through the habitat and therefore the wildlife is at risk if money is not generated and the best way to generate money from areas with low wildlife density is to allow controlled hunting.
As an illustration I will link to a video from Limpopo that shows the stark difference between the land managed for game and that used for agriculture. Both areas used to be the same before the bush was cleared by bulldozers and burnt. To hope that the magic money tree will sprout and pay to maintain the fantastically biodiverse bush (which seems to be your solution) is fantasy that does not help anyone. Over many decades it is clear that if animals have value that supports the local community its population is more likely to survive. Sustainable use wildlife conservation hunting does this and helps maintain huge tracts of land in a better state than the alternatives. Look at Kenya where their policy of not hunting has contributed to a 75% decline in habitat and wildlife populations. Botswana similarly banned trophy hunting but have gone back to it as it allows a vital source of funding for the game areas and local populations.

 

[norsk]

The answer to your question is that no one will pay for game farmers in RSA (for example) to keep game. If they did so then hunting would not need to be used as a management tool to generate revenue. So following this through the habitat and therefore the wildlife is at risk if money is not generated and the best way to generate money from areas with low wildlife density is to allow controlled hunting.
As an illustration I will link to a video from Limpopo that shows the stark difference between the land managed for game and that used for agriculture. Both areas used to be the same before the bush was cleared by bulldozers and burnt. To hope that the magic money tree will sprout and pay to maintain the fantastically biodiverse bush (which seems to be your solution) is fantasy that does not help anyone. Over many decades it is clear that if animals have value that supports the local community its population is more likely to survive. Sustainable use wildlife conservation hunting does this and helps maintain huge tracts of land in a better state than the alternatives. Look at Kenya where their policy of not hunting has contributed to a 75% decline in habitat and wildlife populations. Botswana similarly banned trophy hunting but have gone back to it as it allows a vital source of funding for the game areas and local populations.

It dosnt work now with the curent model.

Are you claiming that it is impossible?

At the end of the day,the local blacks dont mind the whites owning the animals if they get some free meat.The politicians like the revenue from hunting too.

If everyone owned the animals and the meat was still free then I think this would be best.

Edit: Yes I know its Africa but the idea would be easier to market than " lets breed these lion so we can shoot most but send a few to the conservation area's"

 

[Selous]

It dosnt work now with the curent model.

Are you claiming that it is impossible?

At the end of the day,the local blacks dont mind the whites owning the animals if they get some free meat.The politicians like the revenue from hunting too.

If everyone owned the animals and the meat was still free then I think this would be best.

Edit: Yes I know its Africa but the idea would be easier to market than " lets breed these lion so we can shoot most but send a few to the conservation area's"

Animals that have no value or that are not protected by anti poaching are removed indiscriminately by either poaching or poisoning. Funding the anti poaching is critical to the maintenance of wildlife and this is generally done privately rather than by government. The impact of anti poaching patrols on the wildlife has been shown time and time again. If you take the example of the Dande Safari area in north east Zimbabwe- on the border of both Zambia and Mozambique the safari company takes the lease out through the CAMPFIRE initiative. 50% of the revenue goes to the local population. This gives to operators the rights to hunt a quota of game based on a wildlife census- I recall no more than 2% of population. The safari company are obliged under the agreement to provide anti poaching and to undertake community improvement projects - schools, clinics, boreholes as well as bringing meat back to the communities. Add to this the employment of trackers, anti poaching scouts, cooks, skinners, drivers etc and this has a substantial positive effect on the local economy. On the excellent trip @NickJ and I took with @Sybarite Sporting there must have been 20-25 staff employed just for our camp. There was at least one other camp running whilst we were there that I would assume would be similarly staffed and perhaps 10 anti poaching rangers. So that means perhaps 60 families all receiving money from the safari company not considering the government game wardens and casual labour. In an area like Dande this is huge!
Have a read of the Dande anti poaching unit newsletter that details the work and effects over time.

https://mcusercontent.com/09e196b082b781c2dd262f17e/files/ff6d9a3c-6119-2b5e-b88c-6be875357659/Dapu_second_period_2025.pdf

Your left leaning model of letting everyone hunt the wildlife would lose all of these benefits, poaching would be rife, the population would have less employment and the wildlife population would not thrive! In many ways it’s a typical example of socialist policies , it’s great until it runs out of other people’s money to spend! The money in this case being the wildlife that would become depleted.

 

[artschool]

Never happen in the Nordic's,well not untill the Bears and Wolves stop eating livestock.

do you hunt wolf?

 

[Selous]

For any that are interested in how establishing a hunting concession benefits the resident populations of rural Africa and also the effect of a ban and subsequent repeal of hunting goes please watch these films. They are excellent viewing and really show the reality of the situation better than I can describe. Perhaps @norsk could watch them and comment….