Big Elephant Reportedly Taken in Tanzania

[baxterb]

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.

Part of the problem is “who is telling the story?” Unless someone puts money on the table to tell a full story as you have a via a medium that is accessible, is approachable, and above all, tells a story about people and a landscape, those fighting against us will ALWAYS be the ones to tell the story and have the upper hand.

Hunters seem to largely make movies for other hunters, which is preaching to the choir, and when you are preaching to the choir, your back is to the ones who need the sermon the most. Not an easy task.

 

[Scott CWO]

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.



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.



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.


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 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.

Sorry, but this would never work and is unnecessary. Buffer zones from hunting? Between the parks and hunting areas? No thank you.

Besides, there's no money to support anti-poaching efforts unless hunters pay for it.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Sorry, but this would never work and is unnecessary. Buffer zones from hunting? Between the parks and hunting areas? No thank you.

Besides, there's no money to support anti-poaching efforts unless hunters pay for it.

According to the following the buffer zone did work. That is until the area changed operators and the new outfitter ignored the buffer zone agreement between Kenya and Tanzania.

"No thank you."

Perhaps you should pay particular attention to the red highlighted paragraph of Mr. McCallum's email excerpt.

Following copied and pasted from Sue Tidwell's earlier thread.

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?

Besides, there's no money to support anti-poaching efforts unless hunters pay for it.

Your statement is a bit of a fallacy.

I just did a very quick search to reference Tanzania's annual spending on anti poaching efforts. I didn't find what I was exactly looking for to reference from a previous search, but I did find the following regarding Tanzania's anti-poaching efforts:

enactafrica.org

Tanzania's anti-poaching success offers valuable....

Jan 24, 2020 - "This roughly 70% drop in poaching providesvital lessons for Tanzania's neighbors and otherAfrica...."

news.mongabay.com

Poaching declines in Tanzania following....

Jun 17, 2021- "Once known as the world's elephant killing fields, Tanzania appears to have halted the worst ivory...."

undp.org

Tanzania Launches National Strategies to Combat....

Jun 1, 2023 - "The launch of the National Anti-Poaching and Wildlife Management Areas Strategies represen...."

So there is money being spent by the Tanzanian government on anti-poaching operations. From just skimming through these articles besides hunters dollars other countries including the USA and other organizations like World Wildlife Fund are contributing financial and logistical support to assist Tanzania in the fight against poachers and poaching networks.

 

[K-man]

According to the following the buffer zone did work. That is until the area changed operators and the new outfitter ignored the buffer zone agreement between Kenya and Tanzania.

"No thank you."

Perhaps you should pay particular attention to the red highlighted paragraph of Mr. McCallum's email excerpt.

Following copied and pasted from Sue Tidwell's earlier thread.

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?



Your statement is a bit of a fallacy.

I just did a very quick search to reference Tanzania's annual spending on anti poaching efforts. I didn't find what I was exactly looking for to reference from a previous search, but I did find the following regarding Tanzania's anti-poaching efforts:

enactafrica.org

Tanzania's anti-poaching success offers valuable....

Jan 24, 2020 - "This roughly 70% drop in poaching providesvital lessons for Tanzania's neighbors and otherAfrica...."

news.mongabay.com

Poaching declines in Tanzania following....

Jun 17, 2021- "Once known as the world's elephant killing fields, Tanzania appears to have halted the worst ivory...."

undp.org

Tanzania Launches National Strategies to Combat....

Jun 1, 2023 - "The launch of the National Anti-Poaching and Wildlife Management Areas Strategies represen...."

So there is money being spent by the Tanzanian government on anti-poaching operations. From just skimming through these articles besides hunters dollars other countries including the USA and other organizations like World Wildlife Fund are contributing financial and logistical support to assist Tanzania in the fight against poachers and poaching networks.

While you make several good points you must realize the money to fund Tanzania's anti-poaching activities comes from the tenders let out for the hunting concessions. So the statement of "no hunters-no anti-poaching is actually true, just the funding flows through the government first. Also, we are making a lot out of a non-written "gentleman's agreement" that may not actually exist. I have hunted several concessions where the P.H. did not hunt the last couple hundred yards to the boundary simply because if an animal was wounded, the process of recovery becomes extremely difficult. Even more so with animals like elephant that can travel a long distance wounded. I believe Mark Twain said, "Fences make good neighbors" and we must simply acknowledge that a boundary is a boundary, with common sense being the buffer zone. I don't see anywhere that any hunter violated a boundary. This is starting to sound like the whole Cecil incident, where the media said he was "lured" out of the park to be killed. Not to sound like a rant, just my own opinion.

 

[375Ruger416]

I think we’ve gone far enough trying to appease the anti’s and their counterproductive policies. Trophy hunting is a valuable tool for maintaining wilderness, preserving ecosystems, and maintaining healthy populations of all animals - including the charismatic large mammals. That’s the case we need to make.

As far as not being ethical to harvest a ‘habituated animal’, it’s not ethical to habituate wild animals. A habituated wild animal is just a problem waiting to happen. I won’t criticize anyone who harvests one according to the regulations, in a sustainably managed population, minimizes suffering, and makes use of as much of the animal as possible.

Hunting adjacent to national parks and other wilderness areas is a great tool to prevent development and agriculture butting up these wilderness areas. The big picture problem in Africa (with regards to wilderness preservation and wild game) is of a rapidly growing population, widespread poverty, and human wildlife conflict. Hunting is a more effective solution than ‘buffer zones’ or more money losing parks trampled by visitors. We need to make our case better and louder. If we don’t do anything anti’s don’t like, we won’t be doing hunting at all (or anything else). The environment, animals, and people in Africa will all suffer for it.

 

[Rick Cox]

The below linked story dated 11 March reports a "super tusker" has recently been hunted in Tanzania.

THIRD ELEPHANT KILLED BY HUNTERS IN AMBOSELI LANDSCAPE

A third elephant has been killed by trophy hunters in northern Tanzania, in a part of the Greater Amboseli Ecosystem.

biglife.org

This story and the Joint Statement on the same site make for interesting reading.

It seems likely this might blow up into another "Cecil the Lion" story.

I find the report that "all carcasses were burned" interesting to say the least.
If true . . . why? Was there no local human population to collect and use the meat?
I believe this area is primarily Masai land and am not sure about their willingness to eat elephant. But if there was no local human population available or willing to utilize the meat, why not then allow "nature" to utilize the carcass?

"Carcasses burned" sounds like BS to me.

 

[Sue Tidwell]

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.

@Scott CWO Those are definitely valid points. There are no easy solutions that is for sure. Sue

 

[Sue Tidwell]

@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.

You have a valid point. We put all of our faith in the PH's and outfitters. It is conceivable that the hunters didn't know.

 

[McKenzie Sims]

I read in a book somewhere that some outfitters burn elephant carcasses after the usable meat is gone to erase any sign of an elephant dying . Elephant seem to recognize what happened and some may leave the area. I believe it was in Tanzania, of course I could have this wrong.

This is 100% true it helps clear the are of death and will hopfully not be alarming to other Elphants they are very smart animals. This has been a common practice for many years. I wish we knew more detail on if the meat was actually utilized.

 

[bashaw]

Part of the problem is “who is telling the story?” Unless someone puts money on the table to tell a full story as you have a via a medium that is accessible, is approachable, and above all, tells a story about people and a landscape, those fighting against us will ALWAYS be the ones to tell the story and have the upper hand.

Hunters seem to largely make movies for other hunters, which is preaching to the choir, and when you are preaching to the choir, your back is to the ones who need the sermon the most. Not an easy task.

The problem is the Left, Greenies, or radical enviro's what ever you want to call them work with emotion, we use facts and has I've seen here in Oregon with natural resource arguments in the Capitol, is never let the facts get in the way of a crying Mother or a 3rd grader who has a testimony written up by a parent or teacher

 

[wesheltonj]

From elsewhere.

www.the-star.co.ke/new...sident-suluhu-urged/


Order immediate ban on elephant hunting, President Suluhu urged

Trophy hunting in Enduimet area of Tanzania risks wiping out the shared resource

In Summary
The targeted elephants are males in their reproductive prime.
Hunting undermines conservation efforts, disrupts the social structure of elephant communities, and threatens their future.

Over 50 conservation organisations have petitioned Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu to order an immediate ban on elephant trophy hunting.


The organisations warn the ongoing trophy hunting in the Enduimet area of Tanzania risks wiping out the shared resource.

WildlifeDirect, Wildlife Conservation and Management Professionals Society of Kenya, ElephantVoices, Ulinzi Africa Foundation, Amboseli Trust for Elephants, and Save the Elephants have signed the petition.

Others signatories are the Conservancies Association of Kenya, Luigi Footprints Foundation, Maniago Safaris, Wildlife Clubs of Kenya, Teens For Wildlife, Stand Up Shout Out, Nature Kenya, Amboseli Ecosystem Trust, Action For Cheetah Kenya, Big Life Foundation, and Conservation Alliance of Kenya.

The petition says that each elephant is known individually, most of them from birth.

It says the recent trophy hunting not only endangers elephants but also jeopardises this irreplaceable body of knowledge and the genetic legacy of some of Africa's largest-tusked elephants.

"The targeted elephants are males in their reproductive prime and, with tusks symbolising their grandeur, are critical for maintaining the population's genetic propensity for large tusks, which are a major draw for tourism, a vital sector for both our countries."

The petition says the hunting of these individuals undermines conservation efforts, disrupts the social structure of elephant communities, and poses a significant threat to the future of this population.

"We implore you to recognise the scientific, ecological, and economic value of the Amboseli elephants and to grant permanent protection to these icons of Africa in the cross-border area that is part of their regular range," the petitioners say.

The organisations want Suluhu to formalise regulations to ban hunting of elephants in Enduimet Wildlife Management Area, Narco Ranch, Longido GCA, Lake Natron East GCA, and Lake Natron North GCA, and collaborate with Kenya to find alternative conservation strategies that ensure the Amboseli elephants' protection.

There was an international outcry when four individually known elephants, subjects of the Amboseli Elephant Research Project, were shot by trophy hunters on the Tanzanian side of the border in 1994.

In 1995, a moratorium on trophy hunting of this cross-border elephant population was agreed upon between nations.

Late last year, however, two adult males were shot south of the border in Tanzania, ending a 30-year trophy hunting moratorium.

A third elephant was shot in the same area in late February 2024, and, as of March 10, a further three licenses are said to have been granted, raising alarm and putting the integrity of the Amboseli elephant population in jeopardy.

The Amboseli elephants live in Kenya and Tanzania.

The ecosystem includes Amboseli National Park and the surrounding conservancies and lands in Kenya (8,000 km2) and the Enduimet Wildlife Management Area and beyond in Tanzania.

There are currently 2,000 elephants in this ecosystem.

For 51 years, these elephants have been closely studied by the Amboseli Elephant Research Project.

It is the longest continuously running study of elephants in the world and one of the longest studies of any animal.

Each elephant is known individually, has a code number or name, and is documented photographically.

Birth dates for all but a few of the older individuals are known, as are those of the mother, the family, and, in some cases, the father.

A detailed database contains every elephant identified over five decades, including births and deaths, and numbers over 4,000 individuals.

A linked database houses every recorded sighting.

The Amboseli data is an extraordinarily rich and important body of knowledge.

Each individual and each record is a building block that underpins this immense scientific achievement gained over the past half century.

There are 63 elephant families in the Amboseli population, of which 17 families, consisting of 365 members, regularly spend time in Tanzania.

In addition, approximately 30 adult male elephants, over the age of 25 use the Enduimet area and beyond in Tanzania as part of their home range.

 

[Ridge Runner]

The way I see it, it's not Tanzania's responsibility to protect Kenya's "pet" elephant herds. If these antis and Kenyans want these herds of "pet" elephants protected then these antis and Kenya should spend their respective funds to build fencing preventing these elephants from destroying Tanzania's elephant ecosystem.

Of course after the fencing is in place the next subject matter for these antis and Kenya will be:

the mass devastation these "pet" elephant herds have caused to their respective ecosystem---game conservancy---national park,

more frequent human-elephant conflicts, aka "Problem Elephant", as these "pet" elephant herds migrate out of these conservancies---national parks in search for food,

worse yet is the invitation to poachers. With more ivory per "pet" elephant, poaching will increase along with the indiscriminate killing and maiming of calves and juvenile elephants within these "pet" elephant herds.

As to this 51 years of continuous study, to me these numbers just don't add up. The bull cow ratio would have to be 1:1. The number of births to deaths would also have to be 1:1. And the number of young non breeding age bull to cow being 1:1, breeding cow to breeding bull 1:1, aged cow to aged bull 1:1, would mean 50:50 of each category and that 1/3 of each category for over 51 years has remained and currently remains the same for the 2000 sustainable members of the Amboseli herd.

Next questions for this "study group", A) please explain how there are 2000 elephants in the Amboseli ecosystem which is made up of 63 families, yet 17 families of these 63 families "...consisting of 365 members routinely spend time in Tanzaherds? B) what is meant by "...routinely spends time in Tanzania"? C) is this "study group" saying these 365 elephants from Amboseli permentantly migrated to Tanzania, now Tanzania has an additional 365 more elephants? Thereby instead of the claimed 2000 number of elephants in the Amboseli ecosystem in reality there are only 1635 elephants in the Amboseli National Park? D) does this mean the Amboseli ecosystem of 8000²m cannot sustain the Amboseli "pet" elephant herd? And that these 365 elephants have sought--found an area that provides an abundant food source? Negetively impacting Tanzania's elephant ecosystem.

I say bull hockey, the so called numbers and data as stated by Amboseli Elephant Research Project just doesn't match up.

Perhaps I missed it somewhere, so I'll ask, how old were these big tuskers? Cause I haven't seen, or don't remember seeing, any thing about their ages. Just going off what I have read and from the occasional hunting and nature shows on elephants these big tuskers had to be past their prime and at their natural end of life cycle. Thereby they could have left or been pushed out of their respective herds by a "younger" dominant breeding bull, or simply wondered away being unable to keep pace with their respective herds.

Regarding the competitive, gotta have bragging rights "hunters"; The bigger question out of all this is:

Are we now at the preconception stage of "Can Elephant Hunting" in the not so distant future?

 

[wesheltonj]

The one that has been positively identified was 35 or 37.

 

[Ridge Runner]

The one that has been positively identified was 35 or 37.

So this ele would qualify by age as a shooter regardless of his tusks size(?). Or is it 40+ year old eles having 35 to 40 pound tusks that are recommended as trophy animals?

 

[wesheltonj]

Apparently, he was a breading age bull, and and a past breading age bull is preferred. From what I have read he would not be a “shooter” too young. But the main point is, he should have never been shot. There was an agreement between Kenya and Tanzania not to shoot in that concession. I have read the agreement expired and that it was still in effect. The new operator has three hunters harvest 3 super tuskers in that concession. Now Kenya is asking Tanzania for no elephant all along the border. I have zero clue what Tanzania will do regarding that request. But money talks.

If hunters cannot police themselves, the government will. And then we bitch about government regulations, some of which are because of our conduct.

 

[Hunt anything]

The only elephants I’ve had to deal with were problem animals. What age is an acceptable age to shoot a trophy elephant?

 

[baxterb]

The only elephants I’ve had to deal with were problem animals. What age is an acceptable age to shoot a trophy elephant?

His 6th set of molars are ground flat...

 

[Wheels]

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

+1

The elephant poaching in Tanzania from early 2000's-2015, was carried out by Chinese or people employed by Chinese gangs. Some ivory shipments supposedly went out in Chinese diplomatic airplanes. When Magufuli was elected President he put a stop to it. Unfortunately he died in office. It seems his successor is holding firm so far.

 

[Hunt anything]

His 6th set of molars are ground flat...

I guess a better question would be what visual characteristics would you look for to age a shootable bull? Visible hip bones? Sunken temples ? If it’s his teeth would you look for poorly chewed/undigested foliage in his dung while tracking?

 

[Wheels]

According to the following the buffer zone did work. That is until the area changed operators and the new outfitter ignored the buffer zone agreement between Kenya and Tanzania.

"No thank you."

Perhaps you should pay particular attention to the red highlighted paragraph of Mr. McCallum's email excerpt.

Following copied and pasted from Sue Tidwell's earlier thread.

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?

Perhaps I am wrong but it is my understanding that there was a 25-30 year treaty between Kenya and Tanzania that expired without renewal in the last year or two making the hunting for elephant in these areas legal again.

McCallum probably knows what he is talking about but I don't know if he realizes the agreement expired. Or, possibly I am mistaken on the agreement between Kenya and Tanzania. My information is coming from Tanzania.