Big Elephant Reportedly Taken in Tanzania

[Luminous Ham]

And I was curios about elephant status, didnt recognize the 200,000+ mentioned above. So looked at https://ourworldindata.org/elephant-populations. As usual the have nice charts, here are three of them:
Total elephant pop development since year 1500:

Total elephant pop development since year 1979:

Elephant pop development in selected countries:

So, total population has really dropped, total stands around 400.000. Kenya, and many other countries have around 20.000 each (I have omitted many other countries with even smaller numbers from the above chart). Tanzania has seen a huge drop since 1995, now down to 50,000. Small declines in Zimbabwe and Botswana, the two top-scorers.

 

[Scott CWO]

And I was curios about elephant status, didnt recognize the 200,000+ mentioned above. So looked at https://ourworldindata.org/elephant-populations. As usual the have nice charts, here are three of them:
Total elephant pop development since year 1500:
View attachment 593300

Total elephant pop development since year 1979:
View attachment 593301

Elephant pop development in selected countries:
View attachment 593302

So, total population has really dropped, total stands around 400.000. Kenya, and many other countries have around 20.000 each (I have omitted many other countries with even smaller numbers from the above chart). Tanzania has seen a huge drop since 1995, now down to 50,000. Small declines in Zimbabwe and Botswana, the two top-scorers.

Tanzania had lots of poaching for a while. It’s better now and numbers have stabilized and going up again in some areas.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Some one needs to get control over the habituated baboons in Kenya.

I was at an overnight lodge in Kenya and one stole my drink right off my outside table. I didnt think it was a good idea to fight him for it.

 

[Luminous Ham]

Tanzania had lots of poaching for a while. It’s better now and numbers have stabilized and going up again in some areas.

Good to hear!

 

[Sue Tidwell]

This is the truth. Sorry @Sue Tidwell but people shouldn’t be habituating elephants in Kenya in the first place. That’s not in the best interests of wildlife or wildlife conservation.

Scott, I do agree with you. They shouldn't be habituating elephants to people but how do you stop in in national parks where I'm assuming it just comes naturally? Either way, the hunting of these big tuskers is detrimental to the hunting industry. It may not be fair but it is the reality of the situation. The antis will use the killing of these animals to crucify the hunters and the hunting industry in Africa. People and wildlife depend on hunters. In this situation, I think we have to look at the bigger picture. Many hunters....including PH's and hunting concessions feel as I do. I'm attaching a couple quotes from emails I received from my sourse (with permission to repost these).

From a letter from APHA: "...What we do, MUST be for the greater good of conservation, habitat security and all the positive aspects that responsible hunting provides.

Responsible practices: 1. Age-based hunting.
2. Do not post photos on social media, of the obvious species that will inMlame public opinion.
3. Consider your actions on any given safari and what repercussions they will have for the greater wellbeing of the industry.
4. Do not deliberately market your areas as bordering non-hunting areas.
5. As APHA we must seek greater co-operation with those that operate in the non-hunting areas. What is required, is mature dialogue between the various parties to ensure a sensible and realistic solution that beneMits wildlife and habitat security. For that must be paramount.

The reality is that there are certain elephant bulls that we simply must avoid a confrontation with.

They need to be collared or detailed information must be forthcoming as to a speciMic bull that is unusually large tusked and is a known entity. The bull who frequents the Amboseli, they call “Craig”’comes to mind.

As to ignore such could come at grave cost to the entire act of elephant hunting and that in turn would be a threat to much of Africa’s habitat, that hunting currently supports and pays for through the legal and legitimate hunting of these pachyderms.

Regardless of how anyone feels about these topics, ultimately policies should be discussed in a pragmatic, respectful manner and to be decided by, legitimate stakeholders, not mob styled social media reactions. Paul Stones APHA President "


An excerpt from another email by Danny McCallum

"...I do not question the legality, although those hunters have ignored the ban that to my knowledge has been respected since the Tanzanian and Kenya Governments agreed to no hunting of Elephant in this area since 1995.

But I do question the standard of morals and ethics. Surely those hunters that shot those two Elephant in the Enduimet area, know that these Elephant are from Amboseli. Who can call it hunting and fair chase to shoot a habituated Elephant? How will this reflect on the true Professional hunters who have a high standard of morals and ethics?

And why burn the carcasses? In my 53 years of hunting, I have never seen or heard of this practice and the excuse that it was done to prevent poisoning is laughable. The local Maasai community do not eat Elephant meat, but only 35km away are communities that would have gratefully accepted the meat. So what are these hunters trying to hide by burning the carcasses?

As the hunting industry, let us not hide behind the illusion that this is a hunting vs anti-hunting issue. This is about ethics of hunting and there is no middle ground. Either you support the hunting oh habituated cross-border Elephant, or you don’t. Those who don’t need to speak up, for the sake of our industry, because we can be very sure that hunting more Elephant in that area is going to cause further irreparable damage to the public image of hunting and in this case the damage will be justified."

Anyway, Scott, thanks for the comment. I understand your side of it....but I still agree with these men that hunting these habituated tuskers will be devastating to the hunting industry and Africa in general. Sue

 

[Sue Tidwell]

It seems me that an agreement like that is not good for conservation in the long run and has to have negative impact on the local ecosystem and biodiversity. Seems like another Kruger in the making.

I understand your point @Wishfulthinker580. Please see the excerpts from APHA and Danny McCallun for their opinion on this issue that I posted replying to @Scott CWO . Thanks so much for voicing your opinion. This is such a touchy and controversial subject....but it has huge implications for the industry (in my opinion.) Sue

 

[Ridge Runner]

@Sue Tidwell,

Thanks for sharing the emails. I for one agree with Mr. Stone and Mr. McCallum.

However, with regards to Mr. Stones email. It seems he is insinuating the client hunters are more responsible for shooting these big tuskers which in the big logically speaking picture they are because they are the ones that pulled the triggers. However, as Mr Stone pointed out in a almost more secondary way it was the PHs involved lack of ethics and morals that these 2 big tuskers were killed.

IMO Mr Stone should have put more enthusiasm on the PHs and the new outfitter's roles of having hunted these 2 big tuskers in, an although "grey" area, but none the less an established Common Non Hunting Area.

These 2 hunters, as most all of us hunters, first timers to the seasoned veterans, rely on and expect our outfitter to be of high ethical and moral being when we sign up to hunt with the outfitter. We as hunters also expect the people the outfitter hires to be our PH is also of high ethical and moral standards.

Unfortunately I have experienced first hand such lack of ethics and morals in an outfitter/PH in Zimbabwe on a DG hunt. But it wasn't until after I had paid for the hunt, arrived in country, and during the third day's conversations with him that I had booked with a bad outfitter/PH.

I don't know anything about these 2 particular hunters but I will allow them some leeway that they are of high ethical and moral hunting charactor. Allowing that the hunters were unkowningly, although legally, hunting in a "commonly" established buffer zone.

Whereas the 2 PHs knew exactly where the hunt was taking place, knew of these 2 big tuskers and their habits, and the higher odds that by allowing these particular hunters to kill these big tuskers the PHs would in turn receive respectively much bigger tips from these clients.

Then gain there is the outfitter seeing dollar signs. Whereas this/these particular outfitter(s) has a relatively good suspecion that these clients are able to afford the additional price per inch/pound over 'X' size. Now the hunters are hit with higher trophy fees at the end of their hunts.

Yet still again....Mr Stone may have not stated all of his suspecions of these hunts. And the hunters coerced the outfitter(s) and PHs into pushing these hunts to take place, within the "grey" legalities.

Regardless of the hows and whys these to big tuskers are dead and no matter are view points in this matter in the end it will still be the uneducated antis trying to stop the world and the more intellegent trying to keep the world on an even keel.

 

[skydiver386]

All the elephants in Kenya should look like this. That way the hunters in Tanzania as well as the tourists in Kenya know the deal.

 

[Ridge Runner]

All the elephants in Kenya should look like this. That way the hunters in Tanzania as well as the tourists in Kenya know the deal.
View attachment 593411

Like that would really work.

True Story:

Many years ago a farmer in Ohio gave a city fellow permission to deer hunt his farm. Afterwards the farmer had second thoughts but was still going to allow this fellow to deer hunt on his property. As a precaution the farmer in big latter's white washed his cow and mule.

Opening day of deer season the city fellow shot the farmer's cow claiming the cow was a deer. The farmer finally convinced the city fellow he had shot a cow. The city fellow was all apologetic and paid the farmer for killing his cow and left.

As the following year's deer season was nearing this same city fellow goes to the same farmer for permission to deer hunt his farm and the farmer once again gives him permission to deer hunt on his land.

The farmer once again has second thoughts about giving this city fellow permission to deer hunt and goes out and white wash in big letters his mule.

Opening day of deer season the city fellow shoots the farmer's mule claiming he shot a really big Ohio deer.

After awhile the farmer finally convinced the city fellow he had shot the farmer's mule. The city fellow paid the farmer and apologies for mistakenly shooting the farmer's mule.

 

[skydiver386]

Like that would really work.

True Story:

Many years ago a farmer in Ohio gave a city fellow permission to deer hunt his farm. Afterwards the farmer had second thoughts but was still going to allow this fellow to deer hunt on his property. As a precaution the farmer in big latter's white washed his cow and mule.

Opening day of deer season the city fellow shot the farmer's cow claiming the cow was a deer. The farmer finally convinced the city fellow he had shot a cow. The city fellow was all apologetic and paid the farmer for killing his cow and left.

As the following year's deer season was nearing this same city fellow goes to the same farmer for permission to deer hunt his farm and the farmer once again gives him permission to deer hunt on his land.

The farmer once again has second thoughts about giving this city fellow permission to deer hunt and goes out and white wash in big letters his mule.

Opening day of deer season the city fellow shoots the farmer's mule claiming he shot a really big Ohio deer.

After awhile the farmer finally convinced the city fellow he had shot the farmer's mule. The city fellow paid the farmer and apologies for mistakenly shooting the farmer's mule.

My post was not meant to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, tourist's in Kenya should be made aware of their responsibility in all of this, which is the point that I keep trying to make.

 

[Scott CWO]

Scott, I do agree with you. They shouldn't be habituating elephants to people but how do you stop in in national parks where I'm assuming it just comes naturally? Either way, the hunting of these big tuskers is detrimental to the hunting industry. It may not be fair but it is the reality of the situation. The antis will use the killing of these animals to crucify the hunters and the hunting industry in Africa. People and wildlife depend on hunters. In this situation, I think we have to look at the bigger picture. Many hunters....including PH's and hunting concessions feel as I do. I'm attaching a couple quotes from emails I received from my sourse (with permission to repost these).

From a letter from APHA: "...What we do, MUST be for the greater good of conservation, habitat security and all the positive aspects that responsible hunting provides.

Responsible practices: 1. Age-based hunting.
2. Do not post photos on social media, of the obvious species that will inMlame public opinion.
3. Consider your actions on any given safari and what repercussions they will have for the greater wellbeing of the industry.
4. Do not deliberately market your areas as bordering non-hunting areas.
5. As APHA we must seek greater co-operation with those that operate in the non-hunting areas. What is required, is mature dialogue between the various parties to ensure a sensible and realistic solution that beneMits wildlife and habitat security. For that must be paramount.

The reality is that there are certain elephant bulls that we simply must avoid a confrontation with.

They need to be collared or detailed information must be forthcoming as to a speciMic bull that is unusually large tusked and is a known entity. The bull who frequents the Amboseli, they call “Craig”’comes to mind.

As to ignore such could come at grave cost to the entire act of elephant hunting and that in turn would be a threat to much of Africa’s habitat, that hunting currently supports and pays for through the legal and legitimate hunting of these pachyderms.

Regardless of how anyone feels about these topics, ultimately policies should be discussed in a pragmatic, respectful manner and to be decided by, legitimate stakeholders, not mob styled social media reactions. Paul Stones APHA President "


An excerpt from another email by Danny McCallum

"...I do not question the legality, although those hunters have ignored the ban that to my knowledge has been respected since the Tanzanian and Kenya Governments agreed to no hunting of Elephant in this area since 1995.

But I do question the standard of morals and ethics. Surely those hunters that shot those two Elephant in the Enduimet area, know that these Elephant are from Amboseli. Who can call it hunting and fair chase to shoot a habituated Elephant? How will this reflect on the true Professional hunters who have a high standard of morals and ethics?

And why burn the carcasses? In my 53 years of hunting, I have never seen or heard of this practice and the excuse that it was done to prevent poisoning is laughable. The local Maasai community do not eat Elephant meat, but only 35km away are communities that would have gratefully accepted the meat. So what are these hunters trying to hide by burning the carcasses?

As the hunting industry, let us not hide behind the illusion that this is a hunting vs anti-hunting issue. This is about ethics of hunting and there is no middle ground. Either you support the hunting oh habituated cross-border Elephant, or you don’t. Those who don’t need to speak up, for the sake of our industry, because we can be very sure that hunting more Elephant in that area is going to cause further irreparable damage to the public image of hunting and in this case the damage will be justified."

Anyway, Scott, thanks for the comment. I understand your side of it....but I still agree with these men that hunting these habituated tuskers will be devastating to the hunting industry and Africa in general. Sue

Obviously I understand the points but this is also a slippery slope. If areas bordering parks become off limits in one case, people will use it to expand this narrative. Where does it end? This area should never have been off limits in the first place. That’s what’s causing this problem. If hunters had been hunting there all along, there wouldn’t be pet elephants next door in Amboseli. I look at these things like gun control. Give them an inch and they take a mile. You cannot appease anti-hunters.

 

[Ridge Runner]

My post was not meant to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, tourist's in Kenya should be made aware of their responsibility in all of this, which is the point that I keep trying to make.

My thread was meant to invoke some humor as to your picture.

That just be because an animal is labeled and collared. Doesn't mean some dip stick self proclaimed hunter won't shoot the animal. Or some dip stick tourist won't try to get up close to the animal for a selfie to post on social media.

It's not just the tourists on photo safaris. It's also these photo safaris outfitters/guides that have no morals or ethics in staying and keeping tourist at a significantly responsible safe distance from animals to minimize wildlife habitualation and human interference with wildlife; as in a thread posted somewhere here on AH and on YouTube about guides with bakkis filled with photo safari tourist rushing in to see, photograph and video the great wildebeest migration, which ultimately blocked a safe escape root for the wildebeest from the onslaught off attacks by crocs at a water crossing that caused more deaths and catastrophic injuries to the wildebeest.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Obviously I understand the points but this is also a slippery slope. If areas bordering parks become off limits in one case, people will use it to expand this narrative. Where does it end? This area should never have been off limits in the first place. That’s what’s causing this problem. If hunters had been hunting there all along, there wouldn’t be pet elephants next door in Amboseli. I look at these things like gun control. Give them an inch and they take a mile. You cannot appease anti-hunters.

I concur that it is a slippery slope and there is no appeasing the antis.

However, having these buffer zones implace does allow animals the opportunity to expand into a safe area away from the stress of being in constant contact with people tourists and hunters, minimizing being habitualized to humans because exiting in one direction they are hunted which cares the animals fear of humans. Thereby exiting into the park where although humans are only photographing, videoing, or simply there to observe them, the animals still associate humans as preditors and to be avoided.

The problem then becomes will these buffer zones turn into poaching zones?

 

[Scott CWO]

I concur that it is a slippery slope and there is no appeasing the antis.

However, having these buffer zones implace does allow animals the opportunity to expand into a safe area away from the stress of being in constant contact with people tourists and hunters, minimizing being habitualized to humans because exiting in one direction they are hunted which cares the animals fear of humans. Thereby exiting into the park where although humans are only photographing, videoing, or simply there to observe them, the animals still associate humans as preditors and to be avoided.

The problem then becomes will these buffer zones turn into poaching zones?

I guess I need you to restate this. I’m unclear what you mean in your longer paragraph. Are you saying a buffer zone should exist to give the elephants a place to go without tourists or hunters? They have had that for years. It’s not like every elephant that came into Tanzania was killed. We are talking about three bulls.

As for buffer zones, I have hunted several concessions next to parks in Africa and I operate an outfit in Colorado that directly borders the biggest national park in the state on two sides. What sense is a buffer zone? It’s just an extension of a national park.

As for poaching, without hunters or rangers present, poachers will move in to fill the void.

 

[Dudders]

Any idea who counted the elephants in 1500 on the first chart.
and the foot notes say data only available for 2007 and 2015.

 

[Luminous Ham]

Any idea who counted the elephants in 1500 on the first chart.
and the foot notes say data only available for 2007 and 2015.

In the link you can read more about the data. Obviously no-one counted them in 1500, its estimates ("Long-run estimates from 1500 and 1913 in particular have alarge degree of error and should be interpreted with caution; however, they are a useful indicator of the magnitude of population change overtime.")

Not sure what footnote you refer to? But yes, last data are from 2007 and 2015, that's also why there are red dots those two years only in recent years. But also data for 1913, 1979 and other years. Please refer to source for more details: https://ourworldindata.org/elephant-populations

 

[Nhoro]

I had two goats die of unknown causes and tried to burn the carcasses. It takes a shocking amount of wood to burn two goats. Love to know how they managed to burn an elephant.

You beat me to it. There was an anthrax outbreak about 18 years ago at the park my brother works at. They started burning carcasses but then switched to burying because they were struggling to get enough wood. The whole story sounds like a greeny making a few bucks for his Easter holiday. Maybe he saw the Dylan Mulvany "song " and thought he would clown around as well for a few twitface followers ?

 

[Dudders]

In the link you can read more about the data. Obviously no-one counted them in 1500, its estimates ("Long-run estimates from 1500 and 1913 in particular have alarge degree of error and should be interpreted with caution; however, they are a useful indicator of the magnitude of population change overtime.")

Not sure what footnote you refer to? But yes, last data are from 2007 and 2015, that's also why there are red dots those two years only in recent years. But also data for 1913, 1979 and other years. Please refer to source for more details: https://ourworldindata.org/elephant-populations

So the starting point should be 1913 as before that its guess work. 1913 could of been the peak of elephant numbers but who knows.

 

[Ridge Runner]

I guess I need you to restate this. I’m unclear what you mean in your longer paragraph. Are you saying a buffer zone should exist to give elephants a place to go without tourists or hunters? They have had that for years. It’s not like every elephant that came into Tanzania was killed. We are talking about three bulls.

As for buffer zones, I have hunted several concessions next to parks in Africa and I operate an outfit in Colorado that directly borders the biggest national park in the state on two sides. What sense is a buffer zone? It’s just an extension of a national park.

As for poaching, without hunters or rangers present, poachers will move in to fill the void.

It's not just about the number of elephants that were/are killed. It's more about habitualizing all wildlife. In this case focusing on elephants and even more so the 3 big tusked elephants.

Are you saying a buffer zone should exist to give elephantsa placeto go without tourists or hunters?

The Buffer Zone is a sort of No Human Zone. An area that is off limits to both the national park and to hunting and hunting operations.

What I mean by "sort of", I mean only anti poaching units patroling the area.
Because anti poaching units do not operate in the manner hunting operations and photo tourist operations do. Anti poaching operations are neither hunting nor harassing elephants by constantly operating a significant amount of vehicles filled with hunters or tourists. The manner in which anti poaching units do operate allow minimal elephant-human contact.

As for poaching, without hunters or rangers present, poachers will move in to fill the void.

The pitfall to Buffer Zones is; without the constant patroling by anti poaching units in these areas the areas now become heavens for poachers.

Anti poaching units require a lot of financial - logistical support to operate year round. In countries that have hunting seasons, the financial-logistical support for anti poaching units may not be a top 10 of the government's priority funding projects leaving it up to outfitters to create their perse own private anti poaching units...or not.

Focusing on the 3 big tuskers. (Rethorical question) What elephant hunter wouldn't pass on a 80, 90, 100 pound tusk elephant? It takes decades and quality and quantity habitat for elephants to grow these big tusks. Now that the once vast numbers of big tuskers of yesterdecades have been killed, today's and future elephant hunters are left with hunting/killing what is the new-todays standard as big tuskers.

Elephants are their own worst enemy when it comes to loss of habitat. Human population grow and further expansion into elephant habitat is a very close second. Because of these 2 factors the elephant population must be controlled - managed for the elephant to survive and thrive.

By controlling- managing the elephant population we have just drastically reduced the number of elephants that will survive the decades to grow big tusks.

To squash the debate over the loss of genetics by the killing of these 3 big tuskers; As long as 1 bull or 1 cow continues to survive and produce offspring, adding to the preverbial ancestral tree, the genetics of these big tusked elephants will always survive.

Having provided my view points on what I preceive to be the pros and cons to elephant buffer zones between legal hunting outfitters and national parks. I hope to answer your questions.

Are you saying a buffer zone should exist to give the elephants a place without hunters and tourists?

Providing these areas are properly protected from poachers, the infringement from hunting operations and hunters, and national parks. Yes. I see as a win-win-win.

Win - for elephants by having a less stressful habitat, ability to age, reproduce, and grow bigger tusks.

Win - for hunters and their accompaning non hunters, and safari outfitters by being able to show off and hunt big tuskers.

Win - for National Parks and photo safaris outfitters to show off big tuskers to tourists.

Should these areas not be constantly and properly protected. Then my answer is a firm No! A loosing situation for elephants, hunters and photo tourists.

I have hunted several concessions next to parks in Africa and I operate an outfit in Colorado that directly borders the biggest national park in the state on two sides.

I have also hunted, albeit only once so far and I find it questionable, a concession bordered by a national park and tribal land in Zimbabwe. Which in later discussions led to the question of the area being "shot out" due to the lack of wildlife in this area. A buffer zone Could have prevented this.

Secondly, the conflict of legally, (I'll refrain further discussions on ethics and morals for another topic), hunting and shooting an elephant in a hunting area then having to "race" to finish the kill before the elephant reaches the sanctuary of the park to collapse dead in front of a bunch of photo safari tourists.

As to the second part referencing you operating a hunting outfit bordered on 2 sides by Colorado's largest national park. (Again refraining from the ethical and moral debate as another topic of discussion.) The insinuation is that same rules apply in Africa as here in the US. When they don't. Two different countries with at best just an inkling of paralleling rules and/or regulations. Much like if we were to hunt in each other's state using our respective state's hunting regulations to hunt deer or elk. In the end I am pretty confident we would both end up in jail and facing very stiff fines. Therefore this type of "no man's land" no hunting buffer zone between national parks and public hunting land and private hunting outfitters is nonessential here in the US.

I hope I have provided you a more concise understanding as to the whys and hows of my primary views on buffer zones and big tusks elephant. And my attempt at showing a more suttle contempt for photo tourists operations and poachers.

 

[K-man]

When they mean "burn the area" I have seen personally where the elephant kill site is then burned every time to remove future stench from fluids, scraps, etc. Antis take that narrative to mean the whole carcass is burned, because that fits the "trophy hunter" narrative. As any one who has actually been on the ground in Africa knows, nothing goes to waste there when humans are available. If there are no humans around (unlikely) how can you count it as wasted? I watched my first elephant hunted be broken down in one day when there was no village for fifteen miles around, yet there were almost a hundred people there the next morning, most had walked or biked all night to get there.