Huntress interview on giraffe scandal and CBS documentary

[Marcus bock]

My wife and I work with wildlife veterinarians and on wildlife reserves in SA for two months every year. Not that that makes me an authority, but the general numbers we hear are about an 8 to 1 ratio between what hunting brings into SA compared to photo safaris. It's too bad the "conservationists" or "greenies" do not have a clue on how wildlife is managed in Africa (varies per country) and the absolute necessity of the hunting dollar. A lot the tourist dollars go to foreign countries, where the lodge, business owners live. Hunting supports so many industries, like taxidermy, lodge workers, trackers, etc. as well as the local hunting safari owners, etc.
We've done many photo safaris around Africa over the years, and they are fun, Unfortunately, most people who do visit Africa on safari never learn about the real Africa/conservation concerns and how difficult it is. For example, the SA government does not fund most wildlife programs. Understandably so, as unemployment there is around 50%...and to add to that problem, the people in Zimbabwe and Mozambique are flooding in to SA and taking jobs....because 50% unemployment is better than where they live ! Thus, the government does not put money into conservation. Indeed, they give people a stipend every month for having more children.....thus over population continues to swollow up wildlife lands.
I'm sure that even most hunters do not have any concept of the wildlife programs/needs/industries, etc. Wildlife breeding on farms, numbers of wildlife sales barns, capture teams, continued need for wildlife veterinarians to dart and move animals for a lot of reasons, lion "factories", continuing need for anti poaching teams, research on if, how, when and where to put water holes and their impact on wildlife populations, etc.
I hunt because I enjoy the challenge. But the real behind the scenes wild Africa is pretty much unknown by most.

I guess the bottom line to my note is to suggest that the wildlife in Africa (sub Sahara) is in dire straights. The animal number declines are staggering. Hunting and the industries around it provide one of the last major positive impacts on wildlife protection. (interested in working behind the scenes, let me know).

 

[CBH Australia]

Well said.
In short it is an industry!
Australia uses country for grazing puposes. Industry. Kangaroos are harvested for meat and leather. Industry these create jobs and economic growth.
The live export market. Thats an industry that causes another debate.
Without knowing detail i suspect yhe average huter spends more on tour than the average tourist in SA.

 

[ack]

Who really gives a fat rats a$$ about what CBS says or thinks

Well said ! Can't believe how pure stupid news boogers are.

 

[Rule 303]

The other point is what is has the greater negative impact on the natural order of things. ecco tourism or hunting tourism. I do not know but have been told by some that ecco tourism has the biggest negative affects????

 

[Deleted member 43267]

I did some back of the envelope calculations based on some stats that were reported in several independent news articles. In Zimbabwe, according to the sources, tourism provides 6.4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, while hunting provides 0.2 percent. That means that only 1 in 32 tourist dollars spent there was for hunting. A small proportion by that measure. But, The GDP for Zimbabwe this year is projected to be 17.85 billion dollars. 0.2 percent of that would 0.0357 billion, which translates to 35.7 million hunting dollars.

Many news articles (and even scientists) fall into the trap of reporting percentages only when you want to make a number appear smaller than it is. You need to see both the percentage and the actual value. Any economic development that injects 35 million dollars into the rural economy of a nation with low per capita incomes seems substantial, at least to me.

And, there are several other considerations for which there are few data. The first is the assumption that the tourist and hunting dollars are exchangeable. If hunting is stopped then more tourist dollars arise automatically because there is more game to see and they show up to see it. I have no data on this, but there are two arguments against it. The first is that tourism seems to occur in places where there are animals plus scenic beauty, and that hunting takes place in other places that tourists do not visit. The second is that most tourists like amenities that require substantial infrastructure and those investments that are not available generally or easily. No data, but those are the suppositions.

The one area that desperately needs attention is better information on how hunting dollars flow to the people that live there with the animals and are being asked to conserve habitats. I have seen credible investigations that suggest that local people do not receive enough of the monetary benefits. I have seen anecdotal reports and first hand observations that indicate that they do, although by my standards they have small incomes. By their standards it may be a great gig in places where there are no good gigs. I have seen claims that hunting dollars "flit" into the country for a few weeks and then leave magically, with the claim that they flow into the coffers of American and European outfitters. That report was not credible, but that was the claim. And are dollars going to the governments for governmental stuff, or are they staying locally? Again, I would like to see more good data on those issues.

On the other hand, all it takes to investigate a lot of claims is a google search and a calculator.

Jeff

 

[sgt_zim]

Took a little digging, but here's an article on revenue in Timbavati in Limpopo.

https://africasustainableconservati...bavati-funds-itself-with-hunting-and-tourism/

Until a couple years ago, hunters generated WAY more revenue than tourists. But they've increased their fees for photo tourists so that they now generate more revenue than hunters do. But hunters still spend WAY more per person than tourists.

 

[Marcus bock]

Timbavati article was very interesting. We volunteer on one of many properties connected to (fences are removed) Kruger..Balule. Their operating budget comes from the money we(and others) pay to "volunteer", helping in their conservation efforts.
As mentioned above, accurate $ numbers are very hard to come by. One important point, I believe, in comparing numbers related to hunting and safaris (giving wildlife a financial value) , one can not take tourism $ as a whole. It is very common for travelers to visit, for instance, South Africa, and spend much more of their time and $ on activities like Cape Town, Table Rock Mt, zip lining, white shark or penguin watching, visiting mines, apartheid museum, etc. One of my friends just returned from S.A. after one week. He spent 2 days on safari (privately managed). The rest of the package tour was doing and seeing other things.
One would also need to include all of the industries connected to hunting and/or safari's.
Zim's economy is not good (it's in shambles). A lot of Zims have moved into SA...even with its 50% unemployment. Not sure how Zim #'s compare/or are relevant to major hunting countries like SA. ?????
Victoria Falls, I'm sure generates a lot of $ for the tourist industry in Zim. ....
Both hunting and photo safaris give value to conservation.

 

[Rule 303]

Jeff those figure, lets take them at face value , may well be more questionable then we think. In as much as how many hunting tourist then go on to visit other areas or wives, kids travel with them and do not hunt but spend money elsewhere. These $ would not be coming into the countries if it were not for hunting.

Some places ask on their inwards immigration cards how much you intend to spend in country X. I do not know if these figures are then included in tourist dollar break down.

Another break down I would be interested in is, how many locals does hunting and other tourism employ per tourist. I would wager more in the favour of hunting.

 

[Scott CWO]

I didn't think she did great. She did okay. She didn't bring up the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and how that is being applied in Africa. She didn't bring up the anti-poaching that hunters pay the operators to do. She didn't bring up how photographic safaris are only conducted near national parks and and infrastructure. You don't see photo safaris in remote areas where the hunters and outfitters are protecting the wildlife. Toursist won't pay $4500 for a charter flight! The TV hosts are so ignorant and they act like animals don't reproduce! It's not a zero sum game.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Didnt see a lot of ecotourism or photo safaris in the Omay when I was walking around.

The hunting dollars go into the rural communities and all the stats in the world wont discuss how the injection of money is desperately needed. Also, all the antis that say the money never makes it into the community must have never heard of tipping. The wild safaris take a lot of people to run efficiently and there is alot of people to tip. But I digress, the bottom line is statistics dont lie, but can be used to prove whatever point you want.

 

[ThomasBeaham]

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/...c64_a3f9d6b00ce247078bebd4b5551e5d09~mv2.webp

Credit: @Conservation Force

 

[ThomasBeaham]

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/...99980d65a21bc63c61~mv2_d_2721_3487_s_4_2.webp

Credit: @Conservation Force

 

[ThomasBeaham]

Credit: @Conservation Force

 

[Rule 303]

ThomasB thanks for that info.

 

[Mort Hill]

This debate is no different than any two sided argument. Each side will spin in their favor, each side will then refute the other sides spin. Problem with this argument is that the antis do a much better job of getting their message out in mass versus the hunting side of the story. Don’t believe it, just google the debate. The anti’s message comes up far more frequently than that of pro hunting. If we as hunters do not try to bombard social media with a positive spin on hunting as a conservation tool, regardless of the numbers, percentages, and facts, our message is lost in the cesspool of the sheer volume of anti propaganda. Every post, every message regarding hunting as conservation matters, not so much the debate that follows.