POST 1: The regrettable standard of media reporting of this incident by writers employed as professional journalists is astoundingly poor. I hope Africa Geographic demonstrate some initiative in setting the record straight. This first demands some respect for scientific realities, especially pertaining to African conservation.
Far worse is the torrent of vitriolic responses that testify to the seriousness of the conservation crisis in Africa. I will reserve judgement for later on the lapse of ethics and gross immaturity they reveal of the trolls. I challenge you to read and think - yes the english verb - on some critical realities.
This lashing out is a symptom of a deeper, disturbing problem. It is very clear that too few understand the realities and especially the stark escalating losses of biodiversity and especially elephant habitat across Africa. Those of us active as professional scientists (in my case teaching conservation biology to postgrads and undergrad students for over 2 decades) the successful conservation strategies are widely recognized. Successful models are to be admired, and at all costs not allowed to collapse any further, because of fiscal starvation as African governmental infrastructure continues to decay. Economics is key.
There are some solid responses defending ecological and socio-economic realities in these comments [on this blog]. These laudable respondents draw on the facts of the complex "elephant problem". In contrast, the shallowness of the bulk of what can be termed "emotional preservationist vitriol" is utterly lacking in credibility. Overall, these anti-hunting comments flooding this column, and the wider media, reveal how the facts of the biodiversity crisis in Africa - the future of savanna Loxodonta especially - are so very poorly understood. In a fit of such emotional angst, does the thought not occur to ask why the vast proportion of remaining elephant habitat in savannas is designated for the sustainable hunting and cropping of large mammals? Fortunately, in the case of Chewore Safari Area, and much of the Middle Zambezi valley in which it lies, this has been the landuse policy since early in the 20th century. Elephants are the critical economic factor keeping this wilderness ecologically intact.
Stop trophy hunting in these regions? Then condemn the wildlife - starting with all edible large mammals - in these landscapes to extinction. They will soon be overtaken by land hungry peasants, struggling to exist in regions ill-suited to agriculture. What has kept Chewore, and allied regions, relatively intact are the millions of US$dollars that has flowed back from hunting leases and trophy fees to sustain conservation operations and to rural livelihoods. Not only are Safari operators major employers for local communities but the PHs in these countries are the last line of defence against poachers.
Oh, what about national parks reserved for "low-impact" tourism, one should ask? Mana Pools NP is the appropriate example. Culling operations, elephants inclusive, routinely proceeds therein. Generally national parks officers do this, or PH's help or back up on these operations, especially when buffalo and elephants are shot. These parks are the core conservation areas within the landscape mosaic. This is the tried and demonstrated system of legislated land use and land mgmt that has sustained this savanna biodiversity for decades. It is the proven – i.e. tested - conservation model for biodiversity, elephants inclusive. And as a key driver of savanna ecology and habitat structure especially, elephants have to be managed otherwise woodlands (riparian fringes especially) are trashed and converted to grasslands. The latter's biota are distinctly different. Mgmt seeks to maintain representative biodiversity at the landscape scale, especially toward securing the hydrological integrity of wetlands and drainage networks.
The Safari Blocks encircle and buffer these core areas in protected area networks against burgeoning human threat from blanket poaching and land hunger. As far as most African peasants are concerned, an elephants destroys one's crops and tramples one's children. The stark message to the affluent environmentalist? Elephants have no value to these poor people, unless they see tangible benefits. These communities desire more land to live in, and to try and farm. To survive against encroaching agrolandscapes, revenue from these safari areas has to maintain a critical inflow of $/Ha, if biodiversity conservation is to persist. Safari hunting of elephants is critical to the economics of sustainable conservation of savanna wilderness.
A central part the scientific solution is to cull elephants sustainably. And this is where trophy hunting revenues swing the economics positively in favour of the wildlife industry. The alternative to conservation is one [a negative] that we conservationists, committed and/or professionals inclusive abhor. A loss of these landscapes to expanding demands of poverty stricken rural people is the option. Elephants will vanish along with much of the biodiversity. Ban hunting and all of us will witness not only widespread extirpation of wildlife, but condemn these relatively intact habitats to collapse into an engulfing environmental wreck. Future impacts on ecosystem services at the regional and continental scale will be catastrophic, ultimately. Especially in extremes of drought or floods. The emotional preservationists devoted "to save the Elephants", who rank themselves as environmentalists need to reconcile with these basic scientific facts and tenets of ecological economics and biodiversity conservation."
Isn't it funny how the groups opposed to the legal, ethical, licensed sport of hunting is so quick to threaten death to those who do AND innocent family members??? See?!?!? If you start eating like a rabbit you get the mentality of a murderer!
