Would you hunt in Africa, in case the trophies could not be imported to your country?

[mark-hunter]

I went to check this my recent thread.
it looks as follows today, with solid sample of number of votes:

77% would continue to hunt despite the ban
23% would not hunt.

In conclusion, this local UK national ban will not stop international hunting in Africa, especially as it affects only UK hunters. But even if it once applied globally. Or on continent.

So, hunters response here is good news!
Well done gentlemen!

 

[Tanks]

...

77% would continue to hunt despite the ban
23% would not hunt.

In conclusion, this local UK national ban will not stop international hunting in Africa, especially as it affects only UK hunters. But even if it once applied globally. Or on continent.

So, hunters response here is good news!
Well done gentlemen!

Except, it changes the hunts as mentioned in a lot of posts. People will select less expensive non-trophy hunts. For example, I doubt many will book free range lion hunts which will impact conservation negatively.

 

[mark-hunter]

One of the forum members recently commented, that once the hunting is restricted to only one social class, it is not to be socially accepted and sustainable, and evenutually will be banned.
High level trophy hunts, in 5 digit and up price, are actually reserved for smallest elite of international wealthy hunters, as great majority is not able to afford it.
Secondly, when business enviroment change, the business model will have to change, or dissapear.
Based on that, african hunting will face many challenges in the future, and part of it will be changing of business model, and pricing, certanily. Thats how it looks to me.

 

[driehoek]

The goal is to stop hunting. Antis don't care about your shoulder mount they want hunting shut down. It is naive to believe after a trophy ban they would quit and allow us to go on hunting unabated.
If successful they will go hard at a hunting ban with things like shutting down flying with your firearms and most corporations are run by leftists or at least PR minded business folks who bend with every breeze.
If a trophy hunter who has been mislabeled successfully as a criminal who kills only for a head is evil, how much more so is the person who would kill for only a selfie? They don't care about facts and don't even acknowledge or respond to counter arguments given in rebuttal. Every time some hunter with a house and social media full of trophies, mounts or pictures, starts telling one of them how they hunt for conservation or just being in nature it just sends up the BS flag and they don't listen and neither do many on the fence.
I trophy hunt. I'm interested in conservation because I want to keep hunting. One feeds the other.
If I can keep nothing but the memories I'll likely go other places and for other species on my list but I'll aggravate the piss out of my politicians to change things just like the antis do.
Sorry for the rant, no coffee yet.

very true. The agenda is a different one.

 

[driehoek]

Probably not unless the trophy fees are dropped dramatically! Then probably only shoot animals that can be completely utilized, I already struggle with hunting predators for some reason even though I have hunted predators in the states, and my ultimate hunt has always been a leopard hunt but are out of my price range. I struggle with this but in no way condemn any one that does. I think us hunters need to stick together and not look down on others that hunt animals and use methods that we may not use or agree with as long as it is legal.

Meat in Africa is NEVER wasted! It does not matter what is taken. Some eat snakes, others predators and all meat is utilized.

 

[Hunt anything]

Drihoek, yes sir I have never seen ANY waist of meat in Africa, we used to comment that when a reedbuck was shot we carried everything out except for the whistle. Unfortunately I have seen horrible waste in my home state of Alabama, deer with just the hind quarters and backstraps taken and it truly makes me sick.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

I’ve hunted in Africa 15 times since 1974. And I’ll definitely be hunting there again, this year ( and God be willing, many many more times in the foreseeable future ). I already got all of my trophies by my ninth trip. But I keep going back. Because it’s not about the trophies for me, anymore ( I’m pretty sure it never was ).

 

[Mark Biggerstaff]

As I said before I sure will go hunt even if nothing comes back. My trip this year I took 3 DG and 10 plains game. Only having 5 dip and packed to come back home. With the estimates I am getting on freight and such I may not bring back any from my planned 2022 trip!

 

[Tanks]

...
High level trophy hunts, in 5 digit and up price, are actually reserved for smallest elite of international wealthy hunters, as great majority is not able to afford it.
...

Just about every DG hunt outside of the canned hunts of RSA are in low 5 digits and regular folks seem to be able to afford it. It gets expensive when one starts going after the big tuskers and lions.

 

[Lee M]

I hunted Africa 3 times. Brought back less each time. I actually wish i didn’t bring back as much as i did. Could have paid for another trip. I’m happy with pictures, video and the experience at this point. I do understand the desire to bring some trophies back, especially on the first visit.

 

[Aaron N]

I went to check this my recent thread.
it looks as follows today, with solid sample of number of votes:

77% would continue to hunt despite the ban
23% would not hunt.

In conclusion, this local UK national ban will not stop international hunting in Africa, especially as it affects only UK hunters. But even if it once applied globally. Or on continent.

So, hunters response here is good news!
Well done gentlemen!

The numbers on here appear to support hunting without bringing trophies home, but remember the majority or posters on here have been to Africa multiple times.

How many rookies would book their first safari knowing all they could bring back is pictures? Maybe for a cheap day or two add on to an already planned trip, but who will be willing to spend >20k solely for an experience?

I could see this dissuading the next generation of hunters who are just coming into the means to hunt internationally.

 

[mark-hunter]

How many rookies would book their first safari knowing all they could bring back is pictures?

This is difficult question that has a point, for which I really have no idea.

On the other hand, it could arguably be compared to catch and release fishing.
Did catch and release fishing stopped sport fishing?

What people bring home after climbing Mount Everest, on Himalaya, for example? Why they go there?

The point is: In many cases, for many people, experience is what matters, not material proof of activity.
Not for all, but for some.
There are intristic and extrinsic motivation in human psihology.

​

 

[mark-hunter]

Just about every DG hunt outside of the canned hunts of RSA are in low 5 digits and regular folks seem to be able to afford it.

Yes, indeed, regular folks from our neighbourhood.

By regular folks, you mean people from greenish colored countries on this link:

Average income around the world

A comparison of the average income per capita over 92 countries worldwide

www.worlddata.info

This mostly covers the members of this forum: americans, less europeans, few swedes, and couple of brits, other nations much less present. Ocasional Italian, russian, south american, spanish.

But Worlds public opinion and international voice is created on all 5 continents, check the red zones on that map.

An average african, will hardly afford 5 digit hunt. (how many Africans - especially native Africans do you know get to USA to hunt elk?) Same thing for most of Asia. Then you have a red zone of poverty and antihunting mentality India. (which is 20% of world popultion), and China another 20%, together they cover 40% of world population. etc.

In those countries will not be much understanding for the conservation financed by trophy hunt as we understand it, and by signing a trade export international ban on trophies, they would loose nothing in their communities.

Thats why I am saying that business model of safari industry will have to change and follow modern challanges. And make hunting accesable not only to worlds financial elite. Many peopple from all countries of the world travel as tourists. Not all can afford hunt.
On African ground to involve as much as possible of local populations, in programs such as campfire, employment etc... this we already know, things are in progress here.

 

[375Fox]

Yes, indeed, regular folks from our neighbourhood.

By regular folks, you mean people from greenish colored countries on this link:

Average income around the world

A comparison of the average income per capita over 92 countries worldwide

www.worlddata.info

This mostly covers the members of this forum: americans, less europeans, few swedes, and couple of brits, other nations much less present. Ocasional Italian, russian, south american, spanish.

But Worlds public opinion and international voice is created on all 5 continents, check the red zones on that map.

An average african, will hardly afford 5 digit hunt. (how many Africans - especially native Africans do you know get to USA to hunt elk?) Same thing for most of Asia. Then you have a red zone of poverty and antihunting mentality India. (which is 20% of world popultion), and China another 20%, together they cover 40% of world population. etc.

In those countries will not be much understanding for the conservation financed by trophy hunt as we understand it, and by signing a trade export international ban on trophies, they would loose nothing in their communities.

Thats why I am saying that business model of safari industry will have to change and follow modern challanges. And make hunting accesable not only to worlds financial elite. Many peopple from all countries of the world travel as tourists. Not all can afford hunt.
On African ground to involve as much as possible of local populations, in programs such as campfire, employment etc... this we already know, things are in progress here.

It’s a nice idea, but it’s not realistic. Making hunting wild areas in Africa more affordable to the world’s poor doesn’t protect the area or wildlife from human encroachment. The wildlife has to generate value. The wildlife and areas would be long gone at the current rate before the people living in these areas see something more from the wildlife than a source of protein or competition to cattle. South Africa and Namibia (at present) enjoy private property rights which makes protecting areas much easier, but quality areas are still funded by limited trophy hunting at a higher cost. If you turn to cull hunts or half price non-export trophy hunts you obviously have to harvest more to generate the same value and the quality would decline.
I will say it’s unfortunate in places like Zimbabwe the locals living in area don’t have more legal/free access to hunting. Unfortunately if local people in these areas only see wildlife as protein and view it as an inexhaustible resource, there is no incentive to conserve it. The current trophy hunting model is our best option to protect African wildlife and areas at present. The low cost accessible to all hunting model in USA/Canada works because wildlife is valued for something more than just protein.

 

[mark-hunter]

@375Fox

You are of course right, but you have ommited my earlier post.

Secondly, when business enviroment change, the business model will have to change, or dissapear.

So, if your are right in your post above, and if I am right in my quoted post, then the conclusion is - the trophy hunt in wild areas will disapear, and wild areas will dissapear by uncontrolled encroachment and cattle introduction.

And if I am guessing educated correctly it will dissapear in next 50 to 100 years. And with some luck only Namibia and South African system will have some chance.
The time frame deadline I estimated is based on historical records. 100 years ago, entire African continent was huntable. Due to many factors, today only 50% of African continent is huntable. Lets estimate next 100 years, what will happen?

The question is following:
What would be sustainable model to keep species, habitat and hunting alive?

There are following models that we know about:
Pittiful model of Kenyan national parks
Complete dissaperance of wild life, without hunting, or without national parks
European game managament model
American game managment model (speaking of public lands)
Private property system as in South africa and Namiba.
Present system with high dollar paying clients, world financial elite, which finds itself under concstant and ever encreasing international pressure.

So the future of african conservation, and hunting will be, adjusted as per some of above models, or will create some third financial model of sustainable hunting, or dissapear.

 

[375Fox]

@375Fox

You are of course right, but you have ommited my earlier post.


So, if your are right in your post above, and if I am right in my quoted post, then the conclusion is - the trophy hunt in wild areas will disapear, and wild areas will dissapear by uncontrolled encroachment and cattle introduction.

And if I am guessing educated correctly it will dissapear in next 50 to 100 years. And with some luck only Namibia and South African system will have some chance.
The time frame deadline I estimated is based on historical records. 100 years ago, entire African continent was huntable. Due to many factors, today only 50% of African continent is huntable. Lets estimate next 100 years, what will happen?

The question is following:
What would be sustainable model to keep species, habitat and hunting alive?

There are following models that we know about:
Pittiful model of Kenyan national parks
Complete dissaperance of wild life, without hunting, or without national parks
European game managament model
American game managment model (speaking of public lands)
Private property system as in South africa and Namiba.
Present system with high dollar paying clients, world financial elite, which finds itself under concstant and ever encreasing international pressure.

So the future of african conservation, and hunting will be, adjusted as per some of above models, or will create some third financial model of sustainable hunting, or dissapear.

We unfortunately agree. To your question of what model could potentially be sustainable long term, I really don’t think there is if Africa’s population growth continues unchecked. Trophy hunting/exportable trophies to generate value are the best option at present to delay what is currently happening.

 

[R.M.C.]

Seems like the safari industry would be in trouble if there are bans on exports. Obviously the taxidermists would suffer too. I'm one of the rookies that wouldn't go if I had to resort to just taking pictures. And I don't think making it cheaper is much of an option, in my opinion Africa is the best deal going for traveling hunters. I could spend more on a grizzly bear hunt in Alaska with a 50% chance of success on one animal than I plan on spending for my ten day plains game hunt for 6 animals.

 

[Tanks]

Yes, indeed, regular folks from our neighbourhood.

By regular folks, you mean people from greenish colored countries on this link:

Average income around the world

A comparison of the average income per capita over 92 countries worldwide

www.worlddata.info

This mostly covers the members of this forum: americans, less europeans, few swedes, and couple of brits, other nations much less present. Ocasional Italian, russian, south american, spanish.

But Worlds public opinion and international voice is created on all 5 continents, check the red zones on that map.

An average african, will hardly afford 5 digit hunt. (how many Africans - especially native Africans do you know get to USA to hunt elk?) Same thing for most of Asia. Then you have a red zone of poverty and antihunting mentality India. (which is 20% of world popultion), and China another 20%, together they cover 40% of world population. etc.

In those countries will not be much understanding for the conservation financed by trophy hunt as we understand it, and by signing a trade export international ban on trophies, they would loose nothing in their communities.

Thats why I am saying that business model of safari industry will have to change and follow modern challanges. And make hunting accesable not only to worlds financial elite. Many peopple from all countries of the world travel as tourists. Not all can afford hunt.
On African ground to involve as much as possible of local populations, in programs such as campfire, employment etc... this we already know, things are in progress here.

Heck, outside of the green countries most are not even allowed to have firearms let alone hunt anywhere except for the elite in those countries.

In regards to hunting elk, not many Americans can afford to hunt elk either. Most guided elk hunts are more expensive than a multi-species hunt in RSA. Ditto for sheep, brown bear etc., etc..

In the business model, the locals at hunting destinations will need to keep seeing the benefits.

As mentioned before, if bringing the trophies back is banned it will do away with most of the high end DG hunts. I don't see anyone paying 25K+ for bongo hunts in Camerron either. That means no anti-poaching patrols at those destinations.

Hunting for some species is already reduced greatly due to lack of trophies. A good example is the Rhino. How many people do you know that will pay in 5 figures for darting a rhino just so they can complete the Big Five?

 

[mark-hunter]

I don't see anyone paying 25K+ for bongo hunts in Camerron either.

Arguably, yes.
But the fact, is that hunts for bongo, leopard, mountain nyala, and number of other animals are less then 50% sucessful, so for that reason in most cases end without trophy, and without trophy export option. Going for bongo, is in terms of guaranteed success of a trophy a high risk operation.
I assume that people hunting these species are not newbies, and are aware of the odds and they accept them.
On the other hand, they are envolved in these hunts hoping to be able to bring eventual trophies back.
this can be debatable.

But lets bring the subject to another perspective.
Does the concession fee really stop encroachment or urbanisation?
Is it really that high?
Will the goverment say: stop urbanisation becasue we are getting good money from the land as it is, managed by safari operators?
(unless the bribe is paid under the table)

I know, that in my country when local municipality needs to develop to adjoining hunting concession, this has never stopped development or urbanisation. Same for interstate highway constructions.
What happens next is that hunting concession is reduced in acreage, and development and construction begins on new land.

So, hunting area financial revenue from paid concesion, does provide habitat conservation, but it does not stop development in western countries. When they see the need, they are reducing it

I dont see how can it stop in third world countries.

 

[Hunt anything]

Arguably, yes.
But the fact, is that hunts for bongo, leopard, mountain nyala, and number of other animals are less then 50% sucessful, so for that reason in most cases end without trophy, and without trophy export option. Going for bongo, is in terms of guaranteed success of a trophy a high risk operation.
I assume that people hunting these species are not newbies, and are aware of the odds and they accept them.
On the other hand, they are envolved in these hunts hoping to be able to bring eventual trophies back.
this can be debatable.

But lets bring the subject to another perspective.
Does the concession fee really stop encroachment or urbanisation?
Is it really that high?
Will the goverment say: stop urbanisation becasue we are getting good money from the land as it is, managed by safari operators?
(unless the bribe is paid under the table)

I know, that in my country when local municipality needs to develop to adjoining hunting concession, this has never stopped development or urbanisation. Same for interstate highway constructions.
What happens next is that hunting concession is reduced in acreage, and development and construction begins on new land.

So, hunting area financial revenue from paid concesion, does provide habitat conservation, but it does not stop development in western countries. When they see the need, they are reducing it

I dont see how can it stop in third world countries.

On the hunt that is not successful no trophy fee is paid a substantial part of the cost