Cheetah Hunting in Namibia

[Fastrig]

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

As I stated earlier, this is a multi-pronged issue. There are an estimated 700,000 leopards on the planet, which makes their position a bit different than the cheetah and tiger, though it sounds like in SA there is obviously an issue. I have seen some footage of people being attacked by leopard in SA so is this a reaction to that because the leopards have actually been expanding and moving into areas where there haven't been any in a long time? With that many leopards on the planet, I would say managed culling is very reasonable and logical, use the hunting fees for conservation and relocation efforts, or maybe to help other species like the cheetah that aren't as numerous and/or doing as well as the leopards. The leopard is the one big cat I would hunt, and that's because I've know that they are not endangered or stressed in any way. Charge me a fee, use that to help increase the cheetah and lion populations so they become a more viable and hunt-able species again.

 

[Fastrig]

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.

Okay, not opposed to that necessarily, but playing the devil's advocate a tad, if they see the cheetah as being a pest and causing them damage, even though it's been shown repeatedly that the cheetah don't like going after their livestock and much prefer their natural prey, will they truly start protecting the cheetah and encouraging the species to expand so a few hunters can come in during the year and shoot a few of the cats? Maybe they would, but if they don't and all we get is them continuing to kill a "pest" plus letting hunters take some for the fees they pay, are we really going to get anywhere? Again, just playing devil's advocate here, mostly because human nature has more than a tendency to be self-serving. If the cheetah population was where the lion's is, not great but also not pushing towards endangered status, then I might not be so skeptical.

 

[BRICKBURN]

....... The leopard ...... I know that they are not endangered or stressed in any way.

.......... increase the cheetah and lion populations so they become a more viable and hunt-able species again.

These statement fly in the face of so much science.

SCIENCE says there are hunt-able populations of both in Namibia.

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/15954/102421779

CONVENTION FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
EXPORT QUOTAS

STATUS for Leopard and Cheetah. Note, both species have the same status. Note the assessments are global.

 

[Spooksar]

Okay, not opposed to that necessarily, but playing the devil's advocate a tad, if they see the cheetah as being a pest and causing them damage, even though it's been shown repeatedly that the cheetah don't like going after their livestock and much prefer their natural prey, will they truly start protecting the cheetah and encouraging the species to expand so a few hunters can come in during the year and shoot a few of the cats? Maybe they would, but if they don't and all we get is them continuing to kill a "pest" plus letting hunters take some for the fees they pay, are we really going to get anywhere? Again, just playing devil's advocate here, mostly because human nature has more than a tendency to be self-serving. If the cheetah population was where the lion's is, not great but also not pushing towards endangered status, then I might not be so skeptical.

Fastrig What you say is part true, but you are again applying NA standards. A farm in Namibia maybe a primary a cattle farm but it will also have sheep, chickens, pigs and wildlife. Give this let’s say a farmer doesn’t Guide hunters, he will still use the game for food, and he will for a fee per animal let either Biltong hunters or trophy hunters on his property. If he has say Springbok and he charges $150 for trophy and $100 for a Biltong hunter. If Cheetah’s kill 40 Springbok a year he has lost in his eyes $4000-$5000 a year. This will make a difference to his bottom line. As I said in my previous post, education is a big part of solving the problem. A lot of the older people are set in their ways, and are teaching the younger people this. As a side note I was told that the Cheetah I shot probably kill upward of 180 Springbok.

 

[Fastrig]

These statement fly in the face of so much science.

SCIENCE says there are hunt-able populations of both in Namibia.

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/15954/102421779

CONVENTION FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
EXPORT QUOTAS
View attachment 290799

STATUS for Leopard and Cheetah. Note, both species have the same status. Note the assessments are global.

View attachment 290800 View attachment 290801

I looked up estimated leopard populations a few weeks ago and got back several sites stating the survey was in the six figures. I just checked again after reading your post and now getting back sites saying low five figure populations...WTH?! The cheetah estimate is down to 7,100 and a number of the sites are indicating they are expected to be on the endangered species list as early as 5-10 years from now, did not say that about the leopard though. Sounds to me like it's either time to give the big cats a break or say screw 'em and let them go extinct at some point. I'm not hunting any of them or anything else with population numbers that low....doesn't make a bit of sense to me...

 

[Fastrig]

Fastrig What you say is part true, but you are again applying NA standards. A farm in Namibia maybe a primary a cattle farm but it will also have sheep, chickens, pigs and wildlife. Give this let’s say a farmer doesn’t Guide hunters, he will still use the game for food, and he will for a fee per animal let either Biltong hunters or trophy hunters on his property. If he has say Springbok and he charges $150 for trophy and $100 for a Biltong hunter. If Cheetah’s kill 40 Springbok a year he has lost in his eyes $4000-$5000 a year. This will make a difference to his bottom line. As I said in my previous post, education is a big part of solving the problem. A lot of the older people are set in their ways, and are teaching the younger people this. As a side note I was told that the Cheetah I shot probably kill upward of 180 Springbok.

That's very interesting, thanks for the insight.

The more I read on the big cats, the more I'm honestly thinking their days are pretty much numbered, outside of designated parks/reserves/zoos. They require quite a bit of territory, food chains, etc. and humans are simply too invasive a species for that to last when the two start bumping into each other. It's a bit sad, but humans have never co-existed with predators very well and as we've progressed technically that has gotten even worse.

 

[Spooksar]

That's very interesting, thanks for the insight.

The more I read on the big cats, the more I'm honestly thinking their days are pretty much numbered, outside of designated parks/reserves/zoos. They require quite a bit of territory, food chains, etc. and humans are simply too invasive a species for that to last when the two start bumping into each other. It's a bit sad, but humans have never co-existed with predators very well and as we've progressed technically that has gotten even worse.

I like to think with education on these topics with the people that live there it will happen. I know a couple of the outfits I’ve used in Namibia are trying to educate their people. It’s a struggle but seems to be working. It won’t change overnight but I hope it changes before it’s to late

 

[Fastrig]

I like to think with education on these topics with the people that live there it will happen. I know a couple of the outfits I’ve used in Namibia are trying to educate their people. It’s a struggle but seems to be working. It won’t change overnight but I hope it changes before it’s to late

I sure hope you're right as I'd hate to see all the big cats disappear from the wild....but with human encroachment the way it is, and expanding, I'm not overly optimistic sometimes.

 

[ShortMag]

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.

First, we're not talking about culling, we're talking controlled, selective hunting. Second, the statement that "older animals have mostly been culled out because those are the ones in high demand with hunters" is contradictory with both the statement "The poachers don't care, they would just shoot all of them" and the fact that the legal hunting of tigers has not existed in decades. Third, I wouldn't exactly say that tigers were fortunate, since markhor, white rhino, black rhino, and black wildebeest have either fared at least as well if not better and have a better current trajectory thanks to funding from hunting. One to two hundred thousand dollars each per year for 3-5 male tigers past breeding age goes a long way in areas where tigers are found and that doesn't even include the additional side benefits that hunting would bring. Tigers are not monagamous nor do they mate for life, so removing a small number of past their prime males has no negative effect on the population Given those already mentioned examples its more than a stretch to state "No one was going to "hunt" the tiger population back to even marginally healthy levels" when it has already happened/is currently happening for other species.

 

[Spooksar]

I really think the bottom line is
1-animals need a value put on them so they aren’t just shot and wasted.
2- Good management practices including hunting need to be in place
3- Education about the issues and solutions

 

[Fastrig]

First, we're not talking about culling, we're talking controlled, selective hunting. Second, the statement that "older animals have mostly been culled out because those are the ones in high demand with hunters" is contradictory with both the statement "The poachers don't care, they would just shoot all of them" and the fact that the legal hunting of tigers has not existed in decades. Third, I wouldn't exactly say that tigers were fortunate, since markhor, white rhino, black rhino, and black wildebeest have either fared at least as well if not better and have a better current trajectory thanks to funding from hunting. One to two hundred thousand dollars each per year for 3-5 male tigers past breeding age goes a long way in areas where tigers are found and that doesn't even include the additional side benefits that hunting would bring. Tigers are not monagamous nor do they mate for life, so removing a small number of past their prime males has no negative effect on the population Given those already mentioned examples its more than a stretch to state "No one was going to "hunt" the tiger population back to even marginally healthy levels" when it has already happened/is currently happening for other species.

We can agree to disagree on this one, which is fine.....no hunting fees in the world are going to replace the authorities clamping down hard on hunting and poaching animals that are on the brink of going extinct. I'm all for wild life management, hunting fees going to conservation efforts, etc., but once things get to out of whack you have to have a hard pull the other way to get it back in balance.

 

[Fastrig]

I really think the bottom line is
1-animals need a value put on them so they aren’t just shot and wasted.
2- Good management practices including hunting need to be in place
3- Education about the issues and solutions

If only we would actually do that all the time we wouldn't have so many issues....might put #3 at the top though as it normally starts with education so people put a value on the animals and then practice good management of that resource.

 

[Wheels]

We can agree to disagree on this one, which is fine.....no hunting fees in the world are going to replace the authorities clamping down hard on hunting and poaching animals that are on the brink of going extinct. I'm all for wild life management, hunting fees going to conservation efforts, etc., but once things get to out of whack you have to have a hard pull the other way to get it back in balance.

I couldn't disagree more with your first sentence.

Example: I am familiar with a conservancy in Namibia. They had 2,400 springbok. Cheetah's moved in and in less than two years they were down to 400 springbok. One of the landowners in the conservancy has also lost calves. That landowner has shot the last 13 cheetah's he has had the opportunity and let them lay. To the landowner, cheetah's are absolute vermin to be shot on site. Asked if he would let them live if he could sell the hunt for a trophy fee and he said yes. As long as it compensates him for the loss in livestock and springbok. USFW doesn't understand this, or want to understand this. You can't import cheetah to America, thus devaluing the life of a cheetah to virtually nothing, since American's make up the majority of hunters that would consider shooting a cheetah.

Do you really think Namibia or America can police landowners who are loosing tens of thousands of dollars to cheetah. Cheetah's will continue to be shot. Cheetah's have no value and no authorities can clamp down hard enough to stop the aggrieved from looking out for themselves.

If cheetah's are valued through hunting, they will have a chance. If they are "protected", they may only survive in national parks and zoos.

 

[Spooksar]

I couldn't disagree more with your first sentence.

Example: I am familiar with a conservancy in Namibia. They had 2,400 springbok. Cheetah's moved in and in less than two years they were down to 400 springbok. One of the landowners in the conservancy has also lost calves. That landowner has shot the last 13 cheetah's he has had the opportunity and let them lay. To the landowner, cheetah's are absolute vermin to be shot on site. Asked if he would let them live if he could sell the hunt for a trophy fee and he said yes. As long as it compensates him for the loss in livestock and springbok. USFW doesn't understand this, or want to understand this. You can't import cheetah to America, thus devaluing the life of a cheetah to virtually nothing, since American's make up the majority of hunters that would consider shooting a cheetah.

Do you really think Namibia or America can police landowners who are loosing tens of thousands of dollars to cheetah. Cheetah's will continue to be shot. Cheetah's have no value and no authorities can clamp down hard enough to stop the aggrieved from looking out for themselves.

If cheetah's are valued through hunting, they will have a chance. If they are "protected", they may only survive in national parks and zoos.

And there lays the issue of all African animals they have to have value to survive, when that value is taken away they lose

 

[Royal27]

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.

It's more than thinking. It's fact. You can disagree all you want. The facts simply aren't on your side.

Here is an exercise for you. Give me a list of animals that have gone extinct under well regulated and well managed hunting. Heck, give me a list of animals that are in serious decline in areas where well regulated hunting exists.

You really need to open your mind and look at alternatives instead of your preconceived notions. Look at what works, not what doesn't. Why are cheetah populations steady or increasing in areas where they are hunted whole they are declining in areas where they are "resting?"

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.

I'm a hunter. I'm not a tranquilizer. I have no interest in using a dart gun. If you do have at it.

You're again making a non fact based assumption that not hunting cheetahs will increase their populations. So again, why isn't this working in areas where hunting isn't allowed?

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.

You keep saying the number isn't viable. What's the right number? Why are hunted population numbers more stable than non-hunted populations ? Hmmm.....

Honestly and respectfully, I think you need to do a lot more research to understand the issues and solutions. I don't think you have enough knowledge to suggest a viable solution and you want to take away one that has been factually proven to work. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Fastrig]

I couldn't disagree more with your first sentence.

Example: I am familiar with a conservancy in Namibia. They had 2,400 springbok. Cheetah's moved in and in less than two years they were down to 400 springbok. One of the landowners in the conservancy has also lost calves. That landowner has shot the last 13 cheetah's he has had the opportunity and let them lay. To the landowner, cheetah's are absolute vermin to be shot on site. Asked if he would let them live if he could sell the hunt for a trophy fee and he said yes. As long as it compensates him for the loss in livestock and springbok. USFW doesn't understand this, or want to understand this. You can't import cheetah to America, thus devaluing the life of a cheetah to virtually nothing, since American's make up the majority of hunters that would consider shooting a cheetah.

Do you really think Namibia or America can police landowners who are loosing tens of thousands of dollars to cheetah. Cheetah's will continue to be shot. Cheetah's have no value and no authorities can clamp down hard enough to stop the aggrieved from looking out for themselves.

If cheetah's are valued through hunting, they will have a chance. If they are "protected", they may only survive in national parks and zoos.

I was referring to clamp downs on animals on the brink of extinction, such as the tiger....the cheetah isn't there yet, which I've said repeatedly, though it's numbers are dropping rapidly and I'd prefer it not get to that point, nor any of the other big cats in Africa or elsewhere for that matter. Completely get the ramifications of the cheetah on the ranches and if you read some of the posts between me and spooksar above you will see we were discussing the exact things you are referring to and discussing options folks in those areas have and some other aspects, like education, game management, valuations, etc. Maybe the cheetah needs to be handled differently to "save it", as you say, since it's not one of the Big 5 cats and considered vermin in Africa....okay, open to that, so how do we go about "saving" the cheetah, we as hunters-conservationists that is? Win me over to your side, if you will I've got a pretty open mind, at least most of the time

 

[Fastrig]

It's more than thinking. It's fact. You can disagree all you want. The facts simply aren't on your side.

Here is an exercise for you. Give me a list of animals that have gone extinct under well regulated and well managed hunting. Heck, give me a list of animals that are in serious decline in areas where well regulated hunting exists.

You really need to open your mind and look at alternatives instead of your preconceived notions. Look at what works, not what doesn't. Why are cheetah populations steady or increasing in areas where they are hunted whole they are declining in areas where they are "resting?"



I'm a hunter. I'm not a tranquilizer. I have no interest in using a dart gun. If you do have at it.

You're again making a non fact based assumption that not hunting cheetahs will increase their populations. So again, why isn't this working in areas where hunting isn't allowed?



You keep saying the number isn't viable. What's the right number? Why are hunted population numbers more stable than non-hunted populations ? Hmmm.....

Honestly and respectfully, I think you need to do a lot more research to understand the issues and solutions. I don't think you have enough knowledge to suggest a viable solution and you want to take away one that has been factually proven to work. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Okay, Wheels and you made a couple of good points I hadn't probably considered enough. I'm open to any practical approach to help save these animals for future generations, including for hunters. I'll admit that I'm a numbers guy, I own a firm that does software development and data/statistical analysis so that's where my brain automatically goes, i.e. if the numbers drop you are normally losing the battle.

So you ask what is the right number, that's more than a fair question. If you want to go back to the old college days answer, which I'll be happy to go look up if you want, however it will probably make your eyes roll, always did for me at least. The practical world answer, from a couple of articles I've read, would be based on the current make up of the cat's natural prey populations, which are also down considerably from where they were 100 years ago, and the extent where the cat's could be realistically geographically dispersed back to some of their natural habitats. While the numbers were not specified in exact figures, the gist was the current numbers need to be increased to roughly three times their current levels to keep the cats at sustainable and non-stressed levels based on current day ratios of available territory and prey. The articles were discussing the big cats in general, not specifically the cheetah, and doing so from a modern world point of view, not some fantasy land view of getting back to what things were 100 years ago. If we took that as a baseline, that would suggest roughly 21,000 cheetahs in the whole of Africa from their current estimated population of 7200 today. That seems like a reasonable population goal, based on the criteria. Same would go for lion and leopard I would assume. When I get a chance I'm going to go try to find those articles, it's been a couple years or more since I read them but they stuck with me as they weren't off the charts and unrealistic like too many of the advocate-type reviews tend to be. Best response I can provide other than those levels and a good disbursement throughout the continent would also lend itself to healthy genetic pools and reduce effects of decease and other natural causes of population reductions.

On your other points, I get the management stuff and I'm all for it where it's viable. However, the animals are disappearing across the African continent as alarmingly high levels. If what you suggest would at least halt the decline, hell I'm all for that, but the numbers are not increasing even with all the game management that has been put in place. I asked Wheels above, how do we implement your ideas as I'm open minded to anything that's practical. With the tiger they have almost tripled the numbers in the last 5-7 years. They did that by basically shutting down everything and letting nature and the cats do their thing without interference. That's working apparently but that's in a different part of the world, different cultures, different governments, etc. and maybe not going to work in Africa. I tend to believe nature handles things a hell of a lot better than man when she is allowed to, thus my first reaction is to back off and let nature and the cats breath for a while.

 

[Royal27]

but the numbers are not increasing even with all the game management that has been put in place.

Not true. Not in managed areas. You're making a common "arm chair QB" mistake and lumping all of Africa and all of the cats into the same pool. You can't. It's a big place and the needs of the cats are very different as well.

Do you really believe the cheetahs in Namibia should be lumped in with and treated the same way as the cheetahs in Egypt? Do you understand how far apart those populations are?

I tend to believe nature handles things a hell of a lot better than man when she is allowed to, thus my first reaction is to back off and let nature and the cats breath for a while.

This isn't practical. How do you plan to remove all humans and livestock from the home range of the cheetahs ?

With the tiger they have almost tripled the numbers in the last 5-7 years. They did that by basically shutting down everything and letting nature and the cats do their thing without interference.

Same as above. First, not true. Worldwide tiger population hasn't almost tripled in the last seven years. Secondly, populations are managed differently in different areas and countries. And lastly, shutting down and removing people and livestock from all tiger range isn't practical.

Sorry, but Utopia doesn't work in the modern world with modern pressures. Management is needed in the modern world, and hunting where allowed plays a pivotal role, especially in area that won't support the needs of tourists.

 

[BRICKBURN]

I get that you have never been to Africa and that you are learning about new places, so I am trying to help you out.

I looked up estimated leopard populations several sites .......

Sites? Anything with some science attached to it?

Please note the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) screen shots actually quote SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES. Those shots do not include the entire bibliography. Look them up.


eg. See any Wolves in Texas lately? (besides a Zoo)
Start a campaign to save the Northern Timber Wolf through a reintroduction program in Texas.
I am sure it will take about three seconds before you feel the love from the local ranchers who's cattle and sheep you would like to use to save the Wolf.
If you are willing to pay them market price (guaranteed) for every last animal that is lost to the wolves you might get them to go along with it. Otherwise, .....


They banned Lion hunting in Botswana in the farm country and (if you watched the Youtube video from the tree hugger I provided) there are now ZERO LIONS. EXTIRPATED!
While they were being hunted in the area there were Lions!

DCA (Damage Causing Animal), PAC Problem Animal Control animals = DEAD!
It is Africa, "It pays, it stays!"

Most of the Cheetah population in Namibia is located on commercial land! That means farms.

The Namibian government has no money to compensate farmers for lost stock, at least not with any amount of money that even approximates the market value. So, how do you think they view DCA?

Want to give the Lion experiment from Botswana a try for Cheetah in Namibia!?

I don't.

 

[Fastrig]

Not true. Not in managed areas. You're making a common "arm chair QB" mistake and lumping all of Africa and all of the cats into the same pool. You can't. It's a big place and the needs of the cats are very different as well.

Do you really believe the cheetahs in Namibia should be lumped in with and treated the same way as the cheetahs in Egypt? Do you understand how far apart those populations are?

View attachment 290817



This isn't practical. How do you plan to remove all humans and livestock from the home range of the cheetahs ?



Same as above. First, not true. Worldwide tiger population hasn't almost tripled in the last seven years. Secondly, populations are managed differently in different areas and countries. And lastly, shutting down and removing people and livestock from all tiger range isn't practical.

Sorry, but Utopia doesn't work in the modern world with modern pressures. Management is needed in the modern world, and hunting where allowed plays a pivotal role, especially in area that won't support the needs of tourists.

You seem hell bent that the only way is through managed hunting, okay that's fine if it works.....I didn't say one thing about the entire continent being managed the same way, I said how tigers were being managed in India may not be appropriate to how African game needed to be managed, how the hell does that equate to lumping Namibia in with other parts of Africa? And please tone it down a bit, I know how to read a friggin map and distances. Don't think I mentioned any particular part of Africa in any post, I simply said that the cheetah are pretty localized today in certain regions, on only about 9% of their traditional ranges, and that perhaps getting them back to a greater percentage of that terrain may benefit the animal, and possibly humans. Your map above seems to support that statement. I said that different parts of the world may require different approaches. I didn't say nor infer to remove all humans, livestock, or anything else from anything in Africa. I said tigers in India are largely being kept away from humans, primarily in reserves, national parks and conservatories, and nature is doing her thing and populations are rising there. How is that any kind of Utopia? It's simply one approach to a problem. Correction on the numbers, roughly doubled in the last 10 years, I miss read a webpage, 3900 in the wild now up from just shy of 2000.