A self-sustaining/sufficient population could be defined as one that can replenish itself over a period of time(which quite obviously is not possible within 30 days).
Even if they have been released the 30 day's minimum period before being shot, they will have to really shake a leg to kill, breed and raise a litter in 30 day's.
You live in a dream world if you think that lions on these 8 selected/approved properties are released to roam free and become self sustaining/sufficient and establish a pride.
99.99% of these lions are released with the sole purpose of being hunted and if the rules are followed, (that nobody takes responsibility for to actually police and check that this is actually the case) and you are happy with hunting such a CBL released lion, that is up to the individual to decide, however it is quite obvious to know that this is by no means a self sustaining/sufficient lion population.
If these same CBL lions are released on a large enough property with the intent of establishing a lion population and they then become self sustaining/sufficient over a number of years to the point where their numbers are sufficient to allow them being hunted, then it is a entirely different situation.
I consider myself to be an ethical hunter and I will not partake in put and take shooting of animals, no matter what species they are.
Please do not condemn hunters who have higher ethical hunting standards than yourself and label them as being part of the problem in giving the "enemy" aid and comfort, this title is more appropriate to the less ethical hunters.
There are no clear cut answers to all these questions. The only acceptable answers will be determined by the ethical slant and sensitivity of the person answering these questions and statements.
If anybody is pro CBL, go for it they are legal(if released 30 days before the hunt), for the other hunters who think it is not ethical and fair chase hunting(like myself) then do not participate in such a "hunt".
We ethical hunters are definitely not pro "anti".
I was more or less with you until the last line . . .
Are the rest of us unethical hunters?
But let's leave that aside (for the moment).
I say more or less because while I can see your case for your definition of 'self sustaining', I'm not sure that those words have to be read as requiring the possibility of multiple generations. After all, and not to play lawyer (too much), 'self' doesn't, at least on a strict interpretation, require or include subsequent generations The fact that I can sustain myself means I can look after myself. I don't think it is necessary that I also be able to reproduce (although, to be very clear, I have done that, if my wife is to be believed!).
I think we also need to be very clear that if your definition of 'self sustaining' is adopted, there will be many game areas in South Africa, including I would venture sponsors of this site, which would fail the test, at least for some of the animals on their properties. Buffalo, Sable and Roan are obvious examples which come to mind. The breeding animals (if there are any on the property) are generally kept safely away from hunters, while the animals to be hunted are released into the hunting areas. I suppose they might, as a matter of possibility, be around there long enough to reproduce, assuming they aren't shot first and that females could be found. In my experience, this is reasonably unlikely, as the females will generally be kept for breeding, at least so long as they are capable of it, and away from hunters.
This takes me back to your closing line. I accept that you may choose not to hunt these types of animals, although I wonder about just how much due diligence is done to ascertain the exact status of every animal you pursue in South Africa . . . . do you know that females of every species you hunt are present? And how long they've been there? But let's leave that aside. I accept your bona fides on the issue. But you need to understand that this is the basis of much of the game ranching industry in South Africa, and once we began to tar this with a broad brush which says "unethical," we risk much of the gains which wildlife has made under the South African (and Namibian) game ranching model.
Let me be clear, if I'm not. This is not to support a put-and-take type of operation, where one selects a buffalo from some pictures and then the beast is released on a property to be shot. I don't think that type of structure is necessary or integral to the South African model, but do we at least agree that as game breeding - from buffalo to springbok - has become a big business, game ranchers have evolved their practices from complete "laissez faire'" to more 'hands on'? And if so, when does the 'hands on' model become so 'hands on' that it becomes unethical in your view? I mean, one of the advantages of this model - I'll leave it for others to decide if this is a virtue - is that it has brought the price of hunting down to a level where all but perhaps lions and elephants are within reach of virtually anyone.
I don't think these are easy questions, and I don't think there are easy answers. This is what annoys me about those who have leapt to attack PHASA's actions. If anything, they say they are actually going to pay attention to the type of lion hunting that goes on, rather than ignore it completely as was the case prior to this vote. They are now in a position to influence SAPA, and impact the economic livelihood of those breeders who don't conform to reasonable standards. Isn't that better?
By the way, I consider myself an ethical hunter. And I've hunted captive bred lions.
