Hunting SA or "Wild" Africa - Which is Better

[Scott CWO]

Not "suddenly", but the change has and will happen.

Rowland Ward reduced the trophy size for Buffalo and Elephant. 44 inches, 100 pounds a side.... because?

From your gallery. Incredible trophy (ca. 1973 Buffalo.) There are plenty of these in breeding paddocks in RSA, not so many in the "wild" anymore.
View attachment 517138


Apparently there used to be herds of Elephants like this and the space required for them to survive.
Not so much anymore.
View attachment 517140

Projected 50% increase in human population in Botswana. Another million people in the next 25 years does not bode well.

When the question includes "better", the inevitable

Due to the dynamics in Botswana, I would respectfully disagree. As I mentioned in another post, the Okavango Delta is not under much hunting pressure and most areas will likely never again be hunted due to the firm grip of the photographic outfitters. Maun is very close to the delta and makes photo safaris viable, unlike in many other areas of Africa. This should keep the numbers of big tuskers high going forward and human settlements are not allowed in these areas. Botswana’s population growth will mainly happen closer to Gabarone. Botswana is a rich country when compared to other African countries. It’s dynamics are a bit different. The government has also shown a bigger commitment to wildlife resources than many other countries.

 

[Scott CWO]

There is another outcome you are not considering, education. My friends in Bots wanted me there quickly after the reopening, not because there was any concern that the big bulls would be harvested, but that they would quickly become educated and move out of the hunting concessions. Photo safari ops have pushed hunting out of prime areas into the thorn scrub. There are plenty of elephant in the thorn scrub, but those truly big bulls quickly figure out what’s what. If you want an eye opening experience, spend a week or so camping through the parks of Northern Botswana. The old bulls you will see are truly amazing.

This could be a developing issue but so far, this has not been shown across the board. Time will tell. It will also depend on the area and how much unhuntable land each area borders and how much hunting pressure the outfitters apply.

 

[WAB]

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. I don't know you or have any vendetta against you but I'm allowed to voice my opinion. Ignore it if you don't like it... Also, trolling? Lol, okay...

That said, I will retract my statements concerning your hunting ethics. Again, I got too invested in the conversation.

We typically operate to a very high standard of respect on this forum. You’ve come on and made disparaging remarks about members and others that we highly respect and value. That may be OK on other forums. We try not to act that way here.

 

[Scott CWO]

Not racist, but highly biased and hypocritical. Decades (if not centuries) of social conditioning in Europe and North America have created a collective mindset of Africa being too stupid and incompetent to care for itself, and therefore it receives an incredibly heavy dose of criticism as if we don't already know what's going on here.

As am I. But to say that this issue of human population explosion is universal across Africa is hilariously out of touch. Especially if it's concerning Botswana, a literal wasteland of mostly inhospitable wilderness.

And you think ours don't? We're extremely lucky that some African countries' game departments even consider the opinions of outsiders to begin with. They could simply go the route of Latin America and India and just do whatever the hell they want. Most have, but the few who do listen shouldn't be chastised. Lectures never work, only cooperation. And cooperation invariably means that compromises have to be made in some areas. That's just the way it is.

Like I don't already know that. Geez...

I'm being completely frank when I say that you guys are far from experts when it comes to wildlife conservation in Africa. A lot of you seem genuinely oblivious as to how condescending and naive you come across when you constantly rave about "the 1.5 billion Africans." Listen, dude, we know that already. There are measures being put in place to combat that. If you genuinely believe that our efforts to protect our wildlife are fruitless then why should we even bother?

...no?

Completely agree.

Explain to me how Mozambique is at all relevant to Botswana. I provided the actual, analysis-based predictions for human population growth in Botswana until the 22nd century but you're completely ignoring it in favour of your own opinion.

I agree with most of your points and that Botswana is somewhat different. The Botswana government and citizenry seem to value wildlife more than in some other countries. Of course there are bad actors and poachers in every country.

I think you have a valuable perspective in many ways and can help offer some insights. However, please know that members of this site are a bit more informed and respectful than on many other social media sites. I think if you keep your responses to a more easygoing temperature, your ideas and opinions will be respected. We all want the wildlife to thrive and we are on the same side.

 

[PhotoCollector73]

We typically operate to a very high standard of respect on this forum. You’ve come on and made disparaging remarks about members and others that we highly respect and value. That may be OK on other forums. We try not to act that way here.

Fair enough. I'll wind my neck in. The rain here in Joburg has a funny effect on the mind... Or maybe it's loadshedding I'm not sure.

 

[SFRanger7GP]

Soooo...........which is better, SA or "wild" Africa?

For me, wherever I am hunting at the time is the greatest place in the world. Especially if the wife is with me. For the places I cannot hunt for personal, financial and/or health reasons, I live vicariously through the reports and photos here on AH, my books and YouTube videos.

Safe hunting

 

[Vintageguy]

Soooo...........which is better, SA or "wild" Africa?

For me, wherever I am hunting at the time is the greatest place in the world. Especially if the wife is with me. For the places I cannot hunt for personal, financial and/or health reasons, I live vicariously through the reports and photos here on AH, my books and YouTube videos.

Safe hunting

Which is better? Whichever you’re able to visit. +1 on living vicariously.

 

[PhotoCollector73]

Anyways, this stunning lion was posted on Johan Calitz's Insta page. Apparently, this male was very grumpy, and one of the guys accidentally bumped into him while collecting firewood! Fortunately, he made it out untouched.

 

[revturbo9967]

We typically operate to a very high standard of respect on this forum. You’ve come on and made disparaging remarks about members and others that we highly respect and value. That may be OK on other forums. We try not to act that way here.

The fact that many of the regulars here can have a respectful disagreement without it turning into a full on grudge match shows the quality of character within the members. It is not found anywhere else on the internet, that's for sure.

 

[Flewis]

Yes, there seems to be only a handful of disagreeable members here, but they are very loud.

 

[BRICKBURN]

@PhotoCollector73

It appears that you are obstreperous and intentionally obtuse. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and choose to conclude you are having a bad day.

You have gotten a little too invested in the "better" theme of the thread. I implied nothing. Wrong to have population growth?! Every last person needing to feed themselves is welcome to do so in the manner they see fit. You want twenty children, go for it. Self determination at its best.
Human populations will have an impact on wildlife populations. That's it. What can be hunted by anyone will be impacted including Elephants.

I feel for anyone attempting to scratch a living from the soil and having it wiped out in five minutes during the night. That will only increase with relative number changes and limited space availability. Wildlife will lose.

The Buffalo populations have CHANGED. Human populations have CHANGED, Geography has CHANGED. Big Buffalo are now infrequent in the wild. The parallels for all species, including Elephant should be obvious. Hence my reference to Rowland Ward, the African record keeper of note.

I merely shared an image of a huge congregation of Elephants. Migrating herds, whether common or not historically, they no longer occur. Congregations of all fauna have been altered significantly by the changes noted above. That's a fact.

If you listen to the elders, as I have, you can hear the many stories. Springbok migrations through Zululand in huge numbers, etc. No more.

We are all guests that are here for a very short time. Some will be here for a shorter time than others.

 

[PhotoCollector73]

@BRICKBURN , I appreciate your response and interest in the discussion. I might write a concrete response tomorrow once I've had the time to completely convey my thoughts and put them into text. Poor communication can completely warp a conversation into something ugly, and I don't want to repeat what happened today. Does that sound like a good deal?

Most of what you said I completely agree with, but there are some bits that I desperately want to add in but don't have the comprehension at the moment to properly pull it off. I sincerely apologise for my earlier behaviour.

Cheers.

 

[PhotoCollector73]

I implied nothing. Wrong to have population growth?! Every last person needing to feed themselves is welcome to do so in the manner they see fit. You want twenty children, go for it. Self determination at its best.

Okay, I think we both misinterpreted each other here. You're very much coming from the point of a view of a conservationist who is well aware of the negative impacts that human population growth has on wildlife. What I was trying to say is that, in the context of Botswana, the human population is so small and miniscule in comparison to the amount of land available, that an extra million people (all in and around Gabarone away from the north of the country, where the elephants roam) will have next to effects on the country's gross overpopulation of elephants. Because let's be real, the elephant numbers in Botswana are not natural at all. Ron Thompson has frequently gone on about the habitat degradation this has had and even how certain species, lions in particular whose natural hiding places have been reduced, are at the mercy of 130k elephants (conservative estimate!).

I feel for anyone attempting to scratch a living from the soil and having it wiped out in five minutes during the night. That will only increase with relative number changes and limited space availability. Wildlife will lose.

In any other country I'd be inclined to agree. But again, Botswana's human population is too miniscule for any negative effects to be felt on her elephant populations, and the predictions for the amount of people in that country by the end of the century reflects that. If anything, it's the elephants who have pushed into areas where they weren't found originally, and are now having a free-for-all on agriculture. Do I want the elephants around? Absolutely. But again, let's keep in mind that the extremely high bumbers are not natural and Botswana as a country is actually very generous to have decided to keep them, in spite of the damage they do.

The Buffalo populations have CHANGED. Human populations have CHANGED, Geography has CHANGED. Big Buffalo are now infrequent in the wild. The parallels for all species, including Elephant should be obvious. Hence my reference to Rowland Ward, the African record keeper of note.

Nothing I disagree with there. But I doubt that something similar will happen eventually with Botswana's elephants. There's been nothing to suggest a decline in trophy quality, other than game movement. The only thing that might happen is that the big bulls will become more wary and therefore more difficult get up on. I don't really see that as a bad thing tbh.

I merely shared an image of a huge congregation of Elephants. Migrating herds, whether common or not historically, they no longer occur. Congregations of all fauna have been altered significantly by the changes noted above. That's a fact.

How's this? 2021, Chobe Enclave. Okay, it might not be quite as large as the example you gave but it's pretty damn close.

If you listen to the elders, as I have, you can hear the many stories. Springbok migrations through Zululand in huge numbers, etc. No more

In Zululand? I find that hard to believe. South Africa only had a total head of game numbering 600k in the 1970s. Maybe he was telling the truth and that particular area he's from has seen a decline in game? Keep in mind that Africa has experienced massive shifts in game numbers in certain regions, whether it concerns increases or decreases. The Kalahari just as recently as the 60s did indeed have migrating herds of springbok numbering in the millions. Then the veterinary fence was erected and put an end to that. So now the overwhelming majority of wildlife in the Kalahari is found in and around Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and the hunting areas surrounding it, along with the private game reserves in the North West province and Northern Cape.

Whereas the rest of South Africa has experienced the complete opposite. Where there were areas once barren and devoid of game, are now brimming with several species of antelopes. Sure, it's highly controlled but keep in mind that these incredible densities in game numbers didn't exist just 40 years ago.

We are all guests that are here for a very short time. Some will be here for a shorter time than others

And I guess that's what makes life so worthwhile in the first place...

Cheers and thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

 

[PhotoCollector73]

I implied nothing. Wrong to have population growth?! Every last person needing to feed themselves is welcome to do so in the manner they see fit. You want twenty children, go for it. Self determination at its best.

Okay, I think we both misinterpreted each other here. You're very much coming from the point of a view of a conservationist who is well aware of the negative impacts that human population growth has on wildlife. What I was trying to say is that, in the context of Botswana, the human population is so small and miniscule in comparison to the amount of land available, that an extra million people (all in and around Gabarone away from the north of the country, where the elephants roam) will have next to effects on the country's gross overpopulation of elephants. Because let's be real, the elephant numbers in Botswana are not natural at all. Ron Thompson has frequently gone on about the habitat degradation this has had and even how certain species, lions in particular whose natural hiding places have been reduced, are at the mercy of 130k elephants (conservative estimate!).

In any other country I'd be inclined to agree. But again, Botswana's human population is too miniscule for any negative effects to be felt on her elephant populations, and the predictions for the amount of people in that country by the end of the century reflects that. If anything, it's the elephants who have pushed into areas where they weren't found originally, and are now having a free-for-all on agriculture. Do I want the elephants around? Absolutely. But again, let's keep in mind that the extremely high bumbers are not natural and Botswana as a country is actually very generous to have decided to keep them, in spite of the damage they do.

Nothing I disagree with there. But I doubt that something similar will happen eventually with Botswana's elephants. There's been nothing to suggest a decline in trophy quality, other than game movement. The only thing that might happen is that the big bulls will become more wary and therefore more difficult get up on. I don't really see that as a bad thing tbh.

How's this? 2021, Chobe Enclave. Okay, it might not be quite as large as the example you gave but it's pretty damn close.
View attachment 517290
View attachment 517291

In Zululand? I find that hard to believe. South Africa only had a total head of game numbering 600k in the 1970s. Maybe he was telling the truth and that particular area he's from has seen a decline in game? Keep in mind that Africa has experienced massive shifts in game numbers in certain regions, whether it concerns increases or decreases. The Kalahari just as recently as the 60s did indeed have migrating herds of springbok numbering in the millions. Then the veterinary fence was erected and put an end to that. So now the overwhelming majority of wildlife in the Kalahari is found in and around Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and the hunting areas surrounding it, along with the private game reserves in the North West province and Northern Cape.

Whereas the rest of South Africa has experienced the complete opposite. Where there were areas once barren and devoid of game, are now brimming with several species of antelopes. Sure, it's highly controlled but keep in mind that these incredible densities in game numbers didn't exist just 40 years ago.

And I guess that's what makes life so worthwhile in the first place...

Cheers and thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Forgot to put the top paragraph of yours in quotations. Apologies if any confusion was caused.

 

[BSO Dave]

I have no problem with RSA, but your broad generalizations of the relative cost of hunting PG in other countries are just that, broad generalizations. I can assure you that you can hunt on large Botswana ranches, and even areas of Namibia, just as cost effectively as you can hunt RSA.

With all due respect to your opinion sir, I am the last individual on here that is prone to making broad generalizations about anything.. Let's remember the OP's original question in regard to comparing hunting in RSA vs. "wild Africa".. All of my assertions have been specific to the comparison between the overall cost in an RSA plainsgame hunt compared to the same hunt in a true "wild Africa" destination. I never made the argument in regard to the difference in experience as you and others have.. My argument has been specific to the affordability, value, and convenience that RSA offers to which there is no close comparison, and I stand firmly by that assertion from experience rather than broad generalizations.

I have been lucky enough to have visited and hunted several remote destinations of Africa that can be considered "wild", and I have enjoyed the experiences immensely. But, most of these "wild" areas are not African experiences that are affordable or practical for MOST working class folks that would otherwise not be able to experience an African safari in any form if it was not for places like RSA or parts of Namibia.

If we are speaking strictly in terms of "wild" Africa meaning remote destinations that cannot be reached on the day of arrival in Africa, with very few exceptions, the cost of extra travel days, extra accommodations, additional domestic flights within Africa, charter flights/ground transfers to the bush camps, and the much higher daily rates that are a factual reality necessary to facilitate the logistical costs of hunting these remote areas are going to be part of the overall cost. And, all of these criteria above does not include the added cost of trophy prep and getting those trophies back to the USA from the most remote areas.. These costs are quite specific and hardly what I would call broad generalizations.. My best aways..

You joined this site just two weeks ago and seem to enjoy trolling. No one knows you either. At this point there doesn't seem to be any informative posts from you contributing to hunting per se.

I have re-read the forum rules and I have not been able to find the part that says a member of this site has to be on here for a minimum period of time before he/she can post their opinions..

And as far as trolling goes, that sir, is the pot calling the kettle black.. LOL..! You never miss the opportunity to post veiled disparaging comments especially in regard to the RSA or hunting methods of which you do not approve..

 

[Tanks]

... My argument has been specific to the affordability, value, and convenience that RSA offers to which there is no close comparison, and I stand firmly by that assertion from experience rather than broad generalizations.

I have been lucky enough to have visited and hunted several remote destinations of Africa that can be considered "wild", and I have enjoyed the experiences immensely. But, most of these "wild" areas are not African experiences that are affordable or practical for MOST working class folks that would otherwise not be able to experience an African safari in any form if it was not for places like RSA or parts of Namibia.
...

Your premise seems to be focused on cost. Yes, a suit from Marks & Spenser or Walmart is going to cost a lot less than the more upscale stores let alone bespoke tailors. But, then you will have to settle for cheaper materials and a not perfect fit.

If all one can afford is RSA, then go for it. When Joe Average is bragging about his lion hunt at home his audience is not going to know that the lion was raised in a pen and let out for "hunting" a few days earlier.

Cost is only one of the factors that should be considered. Also, if one is flexible with their time there are many reduced cost end-of-the-season or cancellation hunts that pop-up in "wild Africa".

And I have nothing against RSA hunting as I also have nothing against Walmart. They fill the needs of a large range of clientele. I just would not call it the best.

 

[WAB]

With all due respect to your opinion sir, I am the last individual on here that is prone to making broad generalizations about anything.. Let's remember the OP's original question in regard to comparing hunting in RSA vs. "wild Africa".. All of my assertions have been specific to the comparison between the overall cost in an RSA plainsgame hunt compared to the same hunt in a true "wild Africa" destination. I never made the argument in regard to the difference in experience as you and others have.. My argument has been specific to the affordability, value, and convenience that RSA offers to which there is no close comparison, and I stand firmly by that assertion from experience rather than broad generalizations.

I have been lucky enough to have visited and hunted several remote destinations of Africa that can be considered "wild", and I have enjoyed the experiences immensely. But, most of these "wild" areas are not African experiences that are affordable or practical for MOST working class folks that would otherwise not be able to experience an African safari in any form if it was not for places like RSA or parts of Namibia.

If we are speaking strictly in terms of "wild" Africa meaning remote destinations that cannot be reached on the day of arrival in Africa, with very few exceptions, the cost of extra travel days, extra accommodations, additional domestic flights within Africa, charter flights/ground transfers to the bush camps, and the much higher daily rates that are a factual reality necessary to facilitate the logistical costs of hunting these remote areas are going to be part of the overall cost. And, all of these criteria above does not include the added cost of trophy prep and getting those trophies back to the USA from the most remote areas.. These costs are quite specific and hardly what I would call broad generalizations.. My best aways..



I have re-read the forum rules and I have not been able to find the part that says a member of this site has to be on here for a minimum period of time before he/she can post their opinions..

And as far as trolling goes, that sir, is the pot calling the kettle black.. LOL..! You never miss the opportunity to post veiled disparaging comments especially in regard to the RSA or hunting methods of which you do not approve..

Please don’t take my disinclination to respond to your post to in any way indicate that I agree with you. I am willing to share my experiences with any to whom it can be of assistance. To those who already know all the answers, my best always…

 

[PhotoCollector73]

I have re-read the forum rules and I have not been able to find the part that says a member of this site has to be on here for a minimum period of time before he/she can post their opinions..

Exactly. I don't at all paint myself to be a particularly knowledgeable individual and definitely not someone of major importance. And Tank's experience is far above mine. That said, I'm passionate about hunting in Africa and its wildlife, and try to share as much information I find on the topic with everyone here. I have a natural thirst for knowledge. I didn't create an account to just sit on my ass, waiting for two years so that I would eventually fit Tank's standards of respectability.

 

[Flewis]

At this point in my life I can not only afford to hunt what I want but also where I want. Although I like the back and forth narrow or closed minded posts just leave me cold.

 

[Red Leg]

Exactly. I don't at all paint myself to be a particularly knowledgeable individual and definitely not someone of major importance. And Tank's experience is far above mine. That said, I'm passionate about hunting in Africa and its wildlife, and try to share as much information I find on the topic with everyone here. I have a natural thirst for knowledge. I didn't create an account to just sit on my ass, waiting for two years so that I would eventually fit Tank's standards of respectability.

There are things that are different about this site compared to some others. One is that we thankfully have a ignore button. Second, and I believe it far more important, we rarely feel compelled to use it. One may disagree with @Tanks observations about hunting Africa, but his are indeed informed opinions. A "thirst for knowledge" somehow seems at odds with disparaging those who actually possess it. He has neither been rude nor disagreeable. He has simply offered his opinions based upon his experience. Perhaps we would all benefit were you to participate in the same vein.