Cheetah Hunting in Namibia

[Royal27]

@Fastrig ,

You need to read @BRICKBURN's post and watch the YouTube video. Cheetah hunting IS sustainable. The population base IS at a sustainable level, with well manged offtake.

Giraffe isn't an apples and oranges example. It's the same, other than the base number that you seem to have in mind as being too low. But since you seem stuck to it then let's go to the Markhor example I gave. Please explain why they shouldn't have been hunted and how they would have been better off without hunting.

As for the tiger, they should likely be hunted as well. It would bring much needed conservation dollars and protection of both species and habitat.

And I don't think anyone said or disagreed that humans are responsible for wildlife decline. Well regulated hunting though is part of the solution. Doing nothing is not .

 

[AfricaHunting.com]

A couple of Cheetah articles written by @Ron Thomson that I wanted to share here:
- The Cheetah Challenge: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/the-cheetah-challenge.14764/
-Cheetah: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/cheetah.14761/

A few more...
- Namibia Cheetah Conservation Strategy: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/namibia-cheetah-conservation-strategy.34045/
- Cheetah Numbers Decline as African Habitat Shrinks: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/cheetah-numbers-decline-as-african-habitat-shrinks.34057/
- Cheetah Pictures: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/cheetah-pictures.18397/

 

[Fastrig]

Hunting with Cheetah

That would be a great friend to have around the house!!!

 

[AfricaHunting.com]

That would be a great friend to have around the house!!!

Check out: Hunting with a Cheetah: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/hunting-with-a-cheetah.15074/

 

[BRICKBURN]

That would be a great friend to have around the house!!!

 

[Fastrig]

@Fastrig ,

You need to read @BRICKBURN's post and watch the YouTube video. Cheetah hunting IS sustainable. The population base IS at a sustainable level, with well manged offtake.

Giraffe isn't an apples and oranges example. It's the same, other than the base number that you seem to have in mind as being too low. But since you seem stuck to it then let's go to the Markhor example I gave. Please explain why they shouldn't have been hunted and how they would have been better off without hunting.

As for the tiger, they should likely be hunted as well. It would bring much needed conservation dollars and protection of both species and habitat.

And I don't think anyone said or disagreed that humans are responsible for wildlife decline. Well regulated hunting though is part of the solution. Doing nothing is not .

We are probably more on the same page than not. I'm looking at aggregate numbers while I think folks are using regional successes to dismiss the problem with the aggregate numbers. I'm not saying there aren't regional success stories, there are and they may be sustainable regionally, but to dismiss the huge decline in the numbers of these animals across the whole of the continent, and the apparent continual decline in the aggregate numbers, to me is putting our heads in the sand a bit. I do think Central and Southern Africa have realized, or at least begun to realize, the economic wealth their natural wildlife resources can bring them, and some have had to take some pretty extreme measures to protect that wildlife, but even with the conservation that has taken place I do believe for some species, such as the cheetah, there is a real chance it may not be enough. While hunting does provide some resources in regional areas, and it should, it doesn't really address the aggregate numbers concerns. With cheetahs mainly left in a few geographical areas, they are really at the mercy of the natural luck of the draw. One adverse decease hitting those areas and the cheetah species is in real danger of disappearing, where a larger, more larger, diverse geographical population of the animals would be much more sustainable.

 

[Royal27]

We are probably more on the same page than not. I'm looking at aggregate numbers while I think folks are using regional successes to dismiss the problem with the aggregate numbers. I'm not saying there aren't regional success stories, there are and they may be sustainable regionally, but to dismiss the huge decline in the numbers of these animals across the whole of the continent, and the apparent continual decline in the aggregate numbers, to me is putting our heads in the sand a bit. I do think Central and Southern Africa have realized, or at least begun to realize, the economic wealth their natural wildlife resources can bring them, and some have had to take some pretty extreme measures to protect that wildlife, but even with the conservation that has taken place I do believe for some species, such as the cheetah, there is a real chance it may not be enough. While hunting does provide some resources in regional areas, and it should, it doesn't really address the aggregate numbers concerns. With cheetahs mainly left in a few geographical areas, they are really at the mercy of the natural luck of the draw. One adverse decease hitting those areas and the cheetah species is in real danger of disappearing, where a larger, more larger and more diverse geographical population of the animals would be much more sustainable.

Who is putting their head in the sand and who is dismissing the aggregate numbers? The aggregate decline in numbers was the point I was making with the giraffe that you dismissed as an apples to oranges comparison.

If I'm understanding your position correctly we should stop hunting some animals such as the cheetah in areas where it is proven to work because of other areas that are under decline where hunting isn't practiced. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment of your position.

I'd love to hear your plan to increase cheetah populations in non-hunting areas, without hunting of course.

 

[Fastrig]

@Fastrig ,

You need to read @BRICKBURN's post and watch the YouTube video. Cheetah hunting IS sustainable. The population base IS at a sustainable level, with well manged offtake.

Giraffe isn't an apples and oranges example. It's the same, other than the base number that you seem to have in mind as being too low. But since you seem stuck to it then let's go to the Markhor example I gave. Please explain why they shouldn't have been hunted and how they would have been better off without hunting.

As for the tiger, they should likely be hunted as well. It would bring much needed conservation dollars and protection of both species and habitat.

And I don't think anyone said or disagreed that humans are responsible for wildlife decline. Well regulated hunting though is part of the solution. Doing nothing is not .

On the tiger, I would really like to see the math which supports an equation where there are 1300 tigers left on the planet and by killing more of them you somehow increase the total to 1300 + X. Call me a skeptic, but it took almost the entire globe pouring resources, bans, and just about everything else that could collectively be done to stop the killing of the tigers and start bringing them back from just about being extinct. Now there are around 3700 of them. The Markhor was down to between 500-1000 and it took pretty much the same type of effort, though more regionalized, to bring that population back to around 2500 animals today. Yes, they used very limited hunting to help fund some of the conservation efforts on the Markhor while the tiger got international funding support, however, for both animals, if you got caught killing one you were in some serious doo-doo. Those restrictions on humans with sever consequences for killing those animals, much more than any hunting fees obtained or donations collected, are what saved those animals.

 

[Fastrig]

Who is putting their head in the sand and who is dismissing the aggregate numbers? The aggregate decline in numbers was the point I was making with the giraffe that you dismissed as an apples to oranges comparison.

If I'm understanding your position correctly we should stop hunting some animals such as the cheetah in areas where it is proven to work because of other areas that are under decline where hunting isn't practiced. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment of your position.

I'd love to hear your plan to increase cheetah populations in non-hunting areas, without hunting of course.

You seem to think killing cheetah is an answer to increasing their aggregate numbers, I tend to disagree, though I do agree with you that in a given region you can keep numbers managed with strict game management. Here's an idea to throw out on the table, how about instead of using a bullet when hunting the cheetahs, you hunt with a tranquilizer dart. You get to enjoy the thrill of the hunt, which to me at least is the real challenge/fun in hunting, but instead of having a dead cheetah display in your living room you have some great pictures framed of your hunt and the subsequent relocation of the animal(s) to another part of Africa to re-establish the species where it once thrived, using the trophy fees and mounting money you would have spent on the dead animals. Just an idea, but if we collectively did something along those lines, got some vibrant populations in numerous geographic areas, we would have higher aggregate numbers of cheetah and could then implement some of the true managed hunting practices you favor, but with a more sustainable population. Again, just an idea, but by my math that equals 7200 + X instead of 7200 - X on the aggregate scale, provides hunters a chance to "hunt" a cheetah, species is now more dispersed geographically removing some of that natural luck of the draw scenario, and eventually produces a population large enough to allow for true hunting within managed limits without having to worry about losing the species completely. Sure there are other options, but you asked for a possible solution.

 

[Red Leg]

A dirty little “secret” is that most Namibian and South African game farms treat cheetahs like we do coyotes in Texas. They are shot on sight. Whatever the “cites” based take, it is a fraction of those taken in the name of wildlife deprivation. I am certain it would be much better for the species if it were perceived as a valuable game animal resource than a predatory nuisance.

 

[Fastrig]

A dirty little “secret” is that most Namibian and South African game farms treat cheetahs like we do coyotes in Texas. They are shot on sight. Whatever the “cites” based take, it is a fraction of those taken in the name of wildlife deprivation. I am certain it would be much better for the species if it were perceived as a valuable game animal resource than a predatory nuisance.

There are normally more than one piece to these equations, finding solutions is always the trick. And there are often multiple solutions to fix the whole.

 

[Fastrig]

A dirty little “secret” is that most Namibian and South African game farms treat cheetahs like we do coyotes in Texas. They are shot on sight. Whatever the “cites” based take, it is a fraction of those taken in the name of wildlife deprivation. I am certain it would be much better for the species if it were perceived as a valuable game animal resource than a predatory nuisance.

Got a pack of coyotes living behind us...as soon as the scope rings for my 308 get here, scope is getting mounted and there is going to be quite a few less coyotes in this part of Texas

 

[Fastrig]

Check out: Hunting with a Cheetah: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/hunting-with-a-cheetah.15074/

Thanks, that is awesome!

 

[Fastrig]

Magnificent....thanks

 

[ShortMag]

On the tiger, I would really like to see the math which supports an equation where there are 1300 tigers left on the planet and by killing more of them you somehow increase the total to 1300 + X. Call me a skeptic, but it took almost the entire globe pouring resources, bans, and just about everything else that could collectively be done to stop the killing of the tigers and start bringing them back from just about being extinct. Now there are around 3700 of them. The Markhor was down to between 500-1000 and it took pretty much the same type of effort, though more regionalized, to bring that population back to around 2500 animals today. Yes, they used very limited hunting to help fund some of the conservation efforts on the Markhor while the tiger got international funding support, however, for both animals, if you got caught killing one you were in some serious doo-doo. Those restrictions on humans with sever consequences for killing those animals, much more than any hunting fees obtained or donations collected, are what saved those animals.

The math is very simple. Using your numbers, of those 1300 tigers some will die of natural causes every year, mostly due to advanced age/tooth wear. Selective hunting targets a small percentage of the old males, those most likely to die soon and who have already contributed to the population. The funding from those few hunts supports the protection of the remainder of the tiger population such that more of the animals in their prime survive to continue producing offspring and a higher percentage of the offspring survive, thus increasing the total population. The major part you seem to be missing is that the severe restrictions that you tout require enforcement which doesn't magically occur. Enforcement requires motivation ($$), commitment ($$) and effort/manpower($$$) all of which are funded by money brought in by hunting a few.

 

[Spooksar]

The math is very simple. Using your numbers, of those 1300 tigers some will die of natural causes every year, mostly due to advanced age/tooth wear. Selective hunting targets a small percentage of the old males, those most likely to die soon and who have already contributed to the population. The funding from those few hunts supports the protection of the remainder of the tiger population such that more of the animals in their prime survive to continue producing offspring and a higher percentage of the offspring survive, thus increasing the total population. The major part you seem to be missing is that the severe restrictions that you tout require enforcement which doesn't magically occur. Enforcement requires motivation ($$), commitment ($$) and effort/manpower($$$) all of which are funded by money brought in by hunting a few.

This is exactly what it should be, the Cheetah that I shot that’s in Leopard Legends pictures was so old it came into a call, the teeth worn to nothing, he wouldn’t have live much longer. Instead of just dying on his own me shooting him contributed to the wild life management. We can sit all we want in North America or Europe and criticize things in third world countries but the bottom line is, these animals need to have a value to the people that live there, or they will not survive.

 

[Fastrig]

The math is very simple. Using your numbers, of those 1300 tigers some will die of natural causes every year, mostly due to advanced age/tooth wear. Selective hunting targets a small percentage of the old males, those most likely to die soon and who have already contributed to the population. The funding from those few hunts supports the protection of the remainder of the tiger population such that more of the animals in their prime survive to continue producing offspring and a higher percentage of the offspring survive, thus increasing the total population. The major part you seem to be missing is that the severe restrictions that you tout require enforcement which doesn't magically occur. Enforcement requires motivation ($$), commitment ($$) and effort/manpower($$$) all of which are funded by money brought in by hunting a few.

I understand the the funding mechanism, and I'm not against using managed hunting revenues for conservation purposes in the least, actually I'm all for it, however when a population gets as low as it got with the tiger the culling is going to reduce the needed remaining breeding stock since at that level most of the large, older animals have mostly been culled out because those are the ones in high demand with hunters. The poachers don't care, they would just shoot all of them. The tiger was very lucky that it got international attention, political pressure, and large amounts of money donated to reverse the situation. Let's be honest here, hunting revenues obtainable from harvesting a few of the remaining tigers wouldn't have begun to cover the cost of the conservation efforts to restore the tiger population because it simply had gotten to far out of whack. No one was going to "hunt" the tiger population back to even marginally healthy levels. I have never "touted sever restrictions", but lets be honest and acknowledge that if those hadn't been implemented a number of years ago, the tiger would likely be essentially extinct today.

The cheetah is not in as bad a shape as the tiger was/is, and some localized culling revenues may work for a given region for a period of time, however if the aggregate numbers continue to fall as they have been then the cheetah is going to eventually be in the same situation as the tiger. I, for one, would hate to see that happen and am "touting" for us hunters to voluntarily show some self-control and find ways to increase the aggregate numbers of these animals and not allow the cheetah to fall down to where the tiger did. That is not an easy task, but it can be done. If someone can show cheetah numbers are increasing because of managed hunting revenues then I'll jump up and down and cheer, but haven't seen that as of yet. Look at the efforts in Mozambique with successes they are having reintroducing lions to certain areas. One of the Mozambique successes with the lions was recently spotlighted by National Geographic and they showed that the conservation efforts were because of a Hunter's vision and determination to restore the wildlife in his area. That's the kind of press we should be encouraging as hunters and focusing our efforts to replicate with other species that are stressed, like the cheetah. And when the lion populations get to a healthy level, then by all means implement tightly controlled, managed hunting and use hunting revenues to continue the management efforts.

 

[Spooksar]

Fastrig look at what is happening in South Africa with Leopard with hunting there was a reason to save them. I just back from there and every farmer now shoots them on sight. They have no value, if this keeps up there won’t be a Leopard left in South Africa in ten years

 

[Fastrig]

This is exactly what it should be, the Cheetah that I shot that’s in Leopard Legends pictures was so old it came into a call, the teeth worn to nothing, he wouldn’t have live much longer. Instead of just dying on his own me shooting him contributed to the wild life management. We can sit all we want in North America or Europe and criticize things in third world countries but the bottom line is, these animals need to have a value to the people that live there, or they will not survive.

"these animals need to have a value to the people that live there, or they will not survive".....Agree 100%. No one should have a problem with you or anyone else taking an old animal like you did, not in the least. I also want to point out that I'm not criticizing here, I'm saying the cheetah numbers are getting dangerously low and we'd better start looking for ways to reverse that or they are going to end up like the tiger did. How do we help people that live there put value on the cheetah? As pointed out above by another member, they are often looked at as a pest and shot on sight. Is the cheetah expendable at this point? Hope not, but if the numbers drop another 30-50 percent in the next decade, then we have a tiger scenario all over again. How do we help prevent that, or is it simply inevitable at this point because the locals don't care enough?

 

[Spooksar]

"these animals need to have a value to the people that live there, or they will not survive".....Agree 100%. No one should have a problem with you or anyone else taking an old animal like you did, not in the least. I also want to point out that I'm not criticizing here, I'm saying the cheetah numbers are getting dangerously low and we'd better start looking for ways to reverse that or they are going to end up like the tiger did. How do we help people that live there put value on the cheetah? As pointed out above by another member, they are often looked at as a pest and shot on sight. Is the cheetah expendable at this point? Hope not, but if the numbers drop another 30-50 percent in the next decade, then we have a tiger scenario all over again. How do we help prevent that, or is it simply inevitable at this point because the locals don't care enough?

We put a value on them by paying fees that will cover the cost of lost revenue to the locals, and yes the cost to the Hunter may go up. If a farmer can sell a Cheetah for the cost of the damage it does and we can educate them on the value then and only then we may be able to save them. Lots of the younger people understand this but they where brought up with the old idea if it hurts my bottom line it dies. North America went through this with Wolves, Grizzly Bears, cougars and coyotes and we are still fighting it.