How would a ban on trophy imports affect your decisions?

[bogtrotter]

Deer would no doubt still be shot but I believe it would make a difference to how they are managed many
estates depend on overseas clients and the income they bring.
Without overseas clients how many estates could afford to employ professional clients.
During my time in the job I would say that probably 90% of my clients were from overseas.
Think it would be hard to generate the same income from purely UK stalkers .

 

[Heym SR20]

For me it would mean i would still hunt and want to hunt abroad, but focus would switch to purely management hunts with no willingness to pay a trophy fee given no ability to bring a trophy back.

Given that most trophy quality animals are old animals of minimal value to the future of the herd, but of huge value in of terms of putting funds into the local economy /conservation this would be a huge pity.

 

[Dickie]

When any species that is surviving presently because of the conservation values of hunting vanishes these politicians and other numpties should be reminded daily the blood is on their hands.

 

[zambezi]

focus would switch to purely management hunts with no willingness to pay a trophy fee given no ability to bring a trophy back.

Agree. In turn, that will force cut-backs in all forms of anti-poaching work. It will almost certainly impact any high-cost genetics/breeding/diversity work as game ranching and para-statals reduce outgoings to the very minimum. The long-term impact will be great.

When any species that is surviving presently because of the conservation values of hunting vanishes these politicians and other numpties should be reminded daily the blood is on their hands.

My fear is that these losses will manifest after the idiots who set this in motion have left the political stage.

 

[Donnachaidh]

I hunted in Africa for the first time in 2018; a management hunt plus a couple of trophies. To be honest; I can't really afford a trophy Cape Buffalo, which is top of my bucket list, but a non-trophy animal is probably the way I'd go.

 

[Selous]

It seems that this is often forgotten far too easily

 

[starr shot]

As others have said before it’s not just about the so called trophy you take it’s also about the hunt as well.I’ve been on many a hunt/stalk and blanked but still enjoyed it and learnt a lot from it.But the income taking what is deemed a trophy animal will be lost as they command a higher price if you can’t take anything back from the animal you have shot most people will go for cull animals.

 

[User00047]

As others have said before it’s not just about the so called trophy you take it’s also about the hunt as well.I’ve been on many a hunt/stalk and blanked but still enjoyed it and learnt a lot from it.But the income taking what is deemed a trophy animal will be lost as they command a higher price if you can’t take anything back from the animal you have shot most people will go for cull animals.

According was to the poll, at the moment, only 12.5% of people going abroad to hunt would no longer hunt the class of animals they would have done.

 

[starr shot]

According was to the poll, at the moment, only 12.5% of people going abroad to hunt would no longer hunt the class of animals they would have done.

Yes I understand that but they can’t go and hunt if the outfitters have gone to the wall and most of the animals have been poached because of the lack of funds generated by trophy hunting Is not there any more to pay for patrols etc.It doesn’t matter how much any of the outfitters love and respect their animals if there is not enough cash and hunters coming in they won’t survive and it’s already been proven that photography and tourism doesn’t pay the bills.

 

[User00047]

Yes I understand that but they can’t go and hunt if the outfitters have gone to the wall and most of the animals have been poached because of the lack of funds generated by trophy hunting Is not there any more to pay for patrols etc.It doesn’t matter how much any of the outfitters love and respect their animals if there is not enough cash and hunters coming in they won’t survive and it’s already been proven that photography and tourism doesn’t pay the bills.

Whilst what you’re saying is true to an extent, I believe that British hunters represent a very small proportion of the world market for big game hunting and I doubt that having a small number of them out of the game would significantly impact:
a) the total number of animals killed
b) the ratio of “trophy” animals to “cull” animals
c) the finances of outfitters worldwide and their ability to handle poaching
Therefore, I think that the proposed trophy import/export ban is nothing more than an attempt to have a dig at people who enjoy hunting outside the U.K. and is not likely to impact the welfare of any threatened big game species.

 

[zambezi]

According was to the poll, at the moment, only 12.5% of people going abroad to hunt would no longer hunt the class of animals they would have done.

Most long-haul airlines do not make their profit from the cattle-class seats they sell. Their viability actually relies on the relatively low number of high tariff seat sales.

That is a good analogy for conservation hunting: I am sure that all us budget-minded cull hunters keep folk employed, ensure protein distribution for ranch workers and offset some other quotdien game management overheads. But without the high rollers taking the heavy-antlered [post-reproductive] specimens at higher cost, then I doubt if there is the money for long term investment in fences, rural education, anti-poaching teams, etc.

 

[Scotty99]

Antis often cite what we do as being cruel and therefore this is often the basis of their objection to what we do.

The legal definition of cruelty is as follows:-

The deliberate and malicious infliction of mental or physical pain upon persons or animals.

I always argue that what we do is the opposite of this we go to great lengths to ensure a quick and humane death which is the opposite of this definition.

 

[zambezi]

nothing more than an attempt to have a dig at people who enjoy hunting outside the U.K. and is not likely to impact the welfare of any threatened big game species

I am unsure why you qualified the sentence with that phrase.

Surely as those who love the planet's diversity and ecological wonder, we must support initiatives that fund and promote all species? And trophies are taken from all species. Not every region of Africa is blessed with the big game. But high-income trophies can be found everywhere. All game management requires funds to remain viable, whether the land is state or private, dugga boys or duiker.

If your statement above is attempting to assert that the number of trophy-hunting Brits are insignificant to the bottom line for conservation, then I suggest that you are wrong per posts in this forum on various threads and recent statements made by conservancy operators in country:

 

[Tazz]

The big distinction is the money, if you look at any SA, Namibia, Canada, Alaska plus the European hunting destinations the industry is largely funded from “Trophy” hunting so you are paying top end to shoot a trophy animal from however many species is in your deal. As an example of SA and Namibia that may be trophy Eland, Kudu, Impala and Springbok that will be the main cast in your hunt, you may want to shoot some cull animals as well. Typically “Trophy“ level animals will be 2-3 times more expensive than cull stuff. If the ban means all you are going to have is pictures it will put off guys who are early in to their overseas hunting and do want to bring back heads/mounts. The problem for the outfitters is that trophy hunting essentially bank rolls most farms/reserves/concessions if everyone suddenly just wanted to do cull stuff the business models would not hang together. For the overseas visiting hunters coming over here the situation would be the same there is a big price difference between trophy level and cull animals

Before people launch in to me with “Its all about the quality of the stalk, the people and the experience “ I get all of that but the finances are what the outfitters plan around and a trophy ban is going to affect that if it comes about

 

[User00047]

I am unsure why you qualified the sentence with that phrase.

Ok I’ll try and explain:
The people who are in favour of a ban on export/import of hunting trophies imagine that it would somehow benefit big game species. I don’t think they’ve given any thought to the idea that it might affect other species or any other part of the ecosystems in which they live. In their heads, many big game species are endangered due to wealthy white hunters killing them all and the way to help these species is to stop British people bringing any trophies home with them.
I think that stopping British people from bringing trophies home with them will not benefit Polar bears, Lions, Leopards, or any other animals perceived to be “endangered due to hunting”
The question is NOT about the possible benefits of people hunting in other countries. It’s about the pointlessness of trying to ban the international movement of hunting “trophies”
I believe that most people will still hunt whatever they wanted to hunt and some people will hunt even more and any kind of ban will be a waste of time.

 

[zambezi]

In their heads, many big game species are endangered due to wealthy white hunters killing them

Agree: average anti-hunt person has been told the lie that blood-thirsty hedonistic hunters are precipitating the decline of iconic species.

the pointlessness of trying to ban the international movement of hunting “trophies”
I believe that most people will still hunt whatever they wanted to hunt and some people will hunt even more and any kind of ban will be a waste of time.

I think I understand your thrust here: the act of banning trophy hunts will not stop hunting, so if that was the antis' intent it is going to be fruitless.

However, the point being made by starr shot, srvet, CarlW and others in this and other posts is this: Whilst we will continue to hunt [trophy ban or not], the revenue to the safari operators will drop off a cliff edge if no trophy is involved. Erstwhile trophy hunters will return to Africa but will decline to pay the top whack for those hunts.

That is the vital distinction to be made to all our non-hunting friends: Banning trophy imports will not stop hunting. Banning trophy imports will impact conservation.

 

[User00047]

Agree: average anti-hunt person has been told the lie that blood-thirsty hedonistic hunters are precipitating the decline of iconic species.




I think I understand your thrust here: the act of banning trophy hunts will not stop hunting, so if that was the antis' intent it is going to be fruitless.

However, the point being made by starr shot, srvet, CarlW and others in this and other posts is this: Whilst we will continue to hunt [trophy ban or not], the revenue to the safari operators will drop off a cliff edge if no trophy is involved. Erstwhile trophy hunters will return to Africa but will decline to pay the top whack for those hunts.

That is the vital distinction to be made to all our non-hunting friends: Banning trophy imports will not stop hunting. Banning trophy imports will impact conservation.

That’s it, now you understand me.
Re: the last couple of paragraphs: I would guess that if safari operators (for example) found that British big game hunters were no longer interested in shooting big trophy animals, a lot of the time, some American/German/Spaniard would come along and fill the gap. If it became so difficult to find someone interested in shooting big trophies I would expect the day rate/overall cost of a hunt would increase to spread the loss.
Bear in mind also that in many places (North America for example) the price of a hunt is the same irrespective of the size of the trophy.
Perhaps that is the way to go long term....just a price for the hunt and if you shoot a big one..Great.

 

[zambezi]

If it became so difficult to find someone interested in shooting big trophies I would expect the day rate/overall cost of a hunt would increase to spread the loss

I can afford one or two cull hunting trips p.a. at current rates. If the cost of cull hunting rose significantly, I would travel less often. I am sure I am not alone. So if you charge cull hunters more, they will come less often. I.e. revenue from cull hunters declines.

But a working assumption is that the high rollers are the greatest profit area for conservation, so maybe the notion that cull hunters travel less due to higher cost per trip is ok? Working that through, what you are effectively proposing [for conservation funding to remain stet] is that the big money trophy hunters are persuaded to continue to pay the same money for less product.

In my experience, the folk with cash to flash are usually the savvy entrepreneur-types that understand value for money. I do not envisage a sea-change in how they esteem trips. Certainly not in a time frame that would save some outfitters+herds+land usage from being lost.

Cites recently moved Giraffes to appendix 2. It has placed a kybosh on their value to game ranchers in South Africa. So what happens next? The distributed promotion of discreet herds of Giraffes in South Africa are going to disappear. Because they have no value.

 

[bogtrotter]

That’s it, now you understand me.
Re: the last couple of paragraphs: I would guess that if safari operators (for example) found that British big game hunters were no longer interested in shooting big trophy animals, a lot of the time, some American/German/Spaniard would come along and fill the gap. If it became so difficult to find someone interested in shooting big trophies I would expect the day rate/overall cost of a hunt would increase to spread the loss.
Bear in mind also that in many places (North America for example) the price of a hunt is the same irrespective of the size of the trophy.
Perhaps that is the way to go long term....just a price for the hunt and if you shoot a big one..Great.

Don't think your idea will work, Zambezi explains pretty much why, the same for overseas hunters coming to the UK
not everyone wants to pay for a trophy head but those that do keep the enterprise going .
You can't expect everyone to pay trophy prices for a run of the mill animal, and charge everything at cull animal
prices is unrealistic .

 

[bogtrotter]

That’s it, now you understand me.
Re: the last couple of paragraphs: I would guess that if safari operators (for example) found that British big game hunters were no longer interested in shooting big trophy animals, a lot of the time, some American/German/Spaniard would come along and fill the gap. If it became so difficult to find someone interested in shooting big trophies I would expect the day rate/overall cost of a hunt would increase to spread the loss.
Bear in mind also that in many places (North America for example) the price of a hunt is the same irrespective of the size of the trophy.
Perhaps that is the way to go long term....just a price for the hunt and if you shoot a big one..Great.

Don't think your idea will work, Zambezi explains pretty much why, the same for overseas hunters coming to the UK
not everyone wants to pay for a trophy head but those that do keep the enterprise going .
You can't expect everyone to pay trophy prices for a run of the mill animal, and charge everything at cull animal
prices is unrealistic .

Most long-haul airlines do not make their profit from the cattle-class seats they sell. Their viability actually relies on the relatively low number of high tariff seat sales.

That is a good analogy for conservation hunting: I am sure that all us budget-minded cull hunters keep folk employed, ensure protein distribution for ranch workers and offset some other quotdien game management overheads. But without the high rollers taking the heavy-antlered [post-reproductive] specimens at higher cost, then I doubt if there is the money for long term investment in fences, rural education, anti-poaching teams, etc.

This.