South African safari; hunting exotic animals?

[Kimio]

Some here may be familiar with a picture that went viral a while back that involved a women shooting an African Lion. Animal rights activists literally went out of their minds.

More recently, there was another picture with a women posing next to the corpse of a dead Giraffe.

Once again, activists are revving up to go nuts over this.

What does this have to do with firearms and hunting, I was curious what exactly are the laws, regulations and pro's to actually allowing people to hunt animals such as Lions and such.

I have several folks go nuts over this, and would like to have some points to refute them if at all possible. To my knowledge, it's a part of animal control, and the corpses are not left to rot.

I found reference to laws in South Africa, but I'd like more than one source of information if at all possible.

Here's the article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03...n_5018520.html

[JERRYS.]

they say it helps with their conservation efforts... like killing a rhino brings in $10,000 per license..... or something or other.

I wonder how they'd feel if there was a "conservation" effort by selling licenses to kill bald eagles. I mean it brings awareness and money to the cause right?

[Art Eatman]

These might be helpful. H&Hhunter has regularly hunted in Africa for many years.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=604175

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=189864

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=777315

Basically, the game laws are much like ours as to philosophy: Ensure the good of the species as to limits and style of hunting. The meat of most game animals is eaten by natives, if not by the hunting group itself. Protein is in otherwise short supply in rural Africa.

As a group, the "bunny huggers" hold the record for ignorance of the realities of wildlife managment.

[Buzzcook]

There are Africans that are members here. If you do a search on the hunting forum you should find several posts about hunting in Africa.


http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=363909

[Cowboy_mo]

Basically, the game laws are much like ours as to philosophy: Ensure the good of the species as to limits and style of hunting. The meat of most game animals is eaten by natives, if not by the hunting group itself. Protein is in otherwise short supply in rural Africa.

Art is spot on with this comment. I was fortunate enough to go to South Africa in 2010. The day I arrived another hunter had harvested a huge bull giraffe with a bow! I went with the pH on the recovery and hauling the animal to the skinning shed. I asked the pH what they would do with the carcass. He replied that all meet was either consumed by the farm workers or sold to the local butcher shop. I asked if that meant a giraffe steak could be purchased in the butcher shop. He smiled and replied NO, but it does make excellent sausage!
I can also tell you the pH's do their very best to select "mature animals" for harvesting to help with the conservation efforts.

The bunny huggers are fools who don't understand a thing about true conservation efforts which includes hunting. A prime example is what has happened in Kruger Park since Green Peace persuaded the SA government to stop the annual harvest of elephants (IIRC around 2000). Without the harvest, the population has increased substantially and the elephants are now leaving the park in search of food. They are devastating the forage (trees) on private lands around the park, getting out on the roads, etc. Anyway, the bottom line is that hunting is imperative to the SA economy and the conservation of the animals.

[TimSr]

I wonder how they'd feel if there was a "conservation" effort by selling licenses to kill bald eagles. I mean it brings awareness and money to the cause right?

If the bald eagles had limited habitat range, and their numbers were too large for the range they existed, and they told you which birds, specifically you could shoot - surplus males, or animals too old to reproduce - it would be beneficial.

[JERRYS.]

Tim, so the answer is to stop encroaching on their habitat? that is not what has happened in Africa. development has caused a naturally growing animal population to need more than the relatively small area in which they were allowed to live.

I understand the need to cull some of the elephant herds, since poaching has been somewhat curbed they need to have licensed "poaching" to do the same job but pay the government first.

if people ever wanted to actually save a species they'd farm it. once an animal species becomes valuable as live stock (look at Alligators here in the states) people will put forth the effort to ensure the species survives.

you want the rhino and tiger population to grow? start legal farming and the poaching will be curbed since it can be gotten legally.

[Art Eatman]

JERRYS, since what are basically surplus animals are what are killed by hunters, a properly managed wildlife system is, essentially, "farming"--or, possibly more appropriately, "ranching".

As long as there is a monetary value to game animals, they will be protected by locals. In Africa, the villagers get part of the license fees--as well as meat. They thus have a vested interest in the well-being of the herds.

In the US, it's the farmers and ranchers--plus restaurants and motels--where money changes hands from hunters to locals.

Same bottom line.

[eastbank]

i,d like to see you get a license to shoot a rhino for 10,000, a black rhino permit went for 350,000 last year at the dallas safari club auction for black rhino conservation. in 1964 there was a estimated 575,000 big game animals in south africa, today they have grown to over 18 million and the animals are healthy due to controlled hunting that pays its way while and adds to the economy of the country. soon to be a three time hunter in africa. eastbank.

[Cowboy_mo]

Jerry's

if people ever wanted to actually save a species they'd farm it. once an animal species becomes valuable as live stock (look at Alligators here in the states) people will put forth the effort to ensure the species survives.

This is already being done in SA with many species. The outfitter I hunted with has a certified brucellosis and other diseases free herd of Cape Buffalo!
CapeBuffCalves.JPG

Most of the hunting done in Africa is behind high fences. You wouldn't know it as the fenced acreages are thousands of acres.

Someone who has never been to SA or any of the other countries in Africa doesn't understand how important hunting is to the economy of those countries. Having been there, seen things for myself, and talked to the people I can assure you that the killing of a lion, rhino, or whatever may be your favorite animal is very well regulated and managed and provides a positive impact on the people and environment of that nation.

[Geezerbiker]

So called animal rights activists are out of their minds to begin with. There was one loony in southern Oregon that used to harass hunters then go to the sheriff to complain and say that the hunters threatened to shoot him. As I recall he was locked up for his efforts...

Tony

[eastbank]

the places i hunted in botswana and south africa, take game management to heart and provided a hunt (no fish in a barrel) and the areas you can hunt are very large, thousands of acres. i have worn out several pair of good boots hunting there. if you are taking your own rifles,beware of england, amsterdam may be better and a direct flight is best. eastbank.

[Cowboy_mo]

I don't know all the ins and outs but there is an old regulation on the books about getting some kind of permit from the State Department for bringing your firearms in and out of the country. IT WAS RECENTLY ANNOUNCED THAT THIS REG WOULD NOW BE ENFORCED! Thank you Mr. President.

I got and email from an outfitter about it and have received several blurbs from the NRA. Apparently if you don't get this permit, you can't get your firearm back into the country.

[eastbank]

it may be best to rent a rifle there, i used the ph,s rifles last trip, i gave him a 4x leupold for there use. its pretty hassle free with out weapons. eastbank.

[leadcounsel]

So called animal rights activists are out of their minds to begin with.

Really?! I'm an animal rights activist, donate to charities, and don't like seeing animals killed for sport - that includes dog fighting, using live dogs on fishhooks as shark bait, cock fighting, and other horrible treatment of animals. So, I guess I'm "out of my mind?"

Paying to go on a "big game hunt" to shoot and kill an animal desperate for survival is on par with the above. Your "sport" is the suffering and death of a majestic creature, and simply inexcusable.

Just today, illegal tusks representing about 370 dead elephants were confiscated. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-20-08-04-57

BANGKOK (AP) -- Thailand seized 4 tons of ivory hidden in bean sacks tracked from Congo in what authorities said was the biggest bust in the country's history, customs officials said Monday.

The 739 elephant tusks, bound for Laos, were seized upon arrival at a port in Bangkok on Saturday after the authorities received a tip-off and had tracked the containers from Congo, the Customs Department's director-general Somchai Sujjapongse told reporters....

"We have been following the (shipment) for two months. Intelligence reports said ivory from Africa might be smuggled with other products to go through the Laotian border," Somchai said.

Thailand is one of the top destinations for African ivory smuggling in Asia and could face international sanctions soon if it doesn't show progress in combatting the problem....

Poachers have killed tens of thousands of African elephants for their tusks in recent years to meet demand for ivory in Asia. China has imposed a one-year ban on ivory imports amid criticism that its citizens' huge appetite for ivory threatens the existence of Africa's elephants.

If hunting led to conservation, then all of those extinct animals hunted into extinction would still be around. Trophy hunts, and the marginal income it generates, won't do a thing to stop this. This takes government intervention on a grand scale.

Yes, let's consider hunting bald eagles for "conservation."

If the bald eagles had limited habitat range, and their numbers were too large for the range they existed, and they told you which birds, specifically you could shoot - surplus males, or animals too old to reproduce - it would be beneficial.
The ONLY way to save these populations is to prohibit their hunting, and make hunting them or possession of their carcasses punishable by very severe sentences.

Many of the hunted animals, including elephants, have large territorial ranges and are migratory for food and water and biological needs. Humans simply need to be less encroaching and more protecting of these creatures.

People can also help on an individual level by ending the desire to kill these beautiful animals, ending the desire of possessing things like hides and ivory (which is barbaric given what they represent), etc.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing very "manly" about taking your $5000 scoped rifle on a drive into the bush with a paid guide, sitting in wait, and shooting a beautiful creature and ending it's life for your "sport." More enlightened people will see that for the barbarism that it is... I may be the voice of "dissent" on a gun board on this topic, but it's a valid viewpoint. Think about what you are doing. You are putting a bullet into a creature, who's numbers are suffering, for sport. If you take pleasure in seeing a creature suffer and die, which is really what we are talking about here, that's simply not right. No apologies if that hurts your feelings.

Hunting them for "conservation" is just an excuse to hunt them. If "hunters" were really interested in conserving them, they'd take that big pile of money otherwise spent on a hunting trip, and just give to a conservation cause instead. But they don't because that's not what this is about. This is about some thrill of killing a huge animal with a rifle. And that is frankly disturbing when considered on both the micro and macro levels, given the ramifications. Some day, those populations could be gone, and "hunters" here will have taken one of them. That is very upsetting and sad.

Meanwhile, populations of these majestic creatures reaches near extinction and I see no logic in killing a single one of them.

[TimSr]

Many of the hunted animals, including elephants, have large territorial ranges and are migratory for food and water and biological needs. Humans simply need to be less encroaching and more protecting of these creatures.

I won't go into the inaccurracies and misconceptions in your entire monologue. I'll just focus on this one incorrect statement which is the basis for your other innaccuracies.

Most elephants are in preserves and there "territorial range" is within the fernces of the preserves. Humans are not encroaching into the preserves. Granted, these preserves are huge, like fencing in a national forest, but are carefully managed and will only support a limited number of animals. When you exceed that limit, they must be culled, or they will destroy their own habitat, and the entire herd suffers. Animals to be culled are not just randomly selected, but are surplus animals that are least productive to the herd. You have two ways to cull them. You can either have government employees shoot them, or you can offer high priced hunting permits, and employ numerous locals who provide services for wealthy hunters who pump thousands into the local economy and and conservation efforts. The number of dead animals is the same. International, well intentioned do more marm than good laws will not allow the hunter to take any of the meat or animal parts with him out of the country. The locals eat the meat, and sadly, the ivory, if any, is destroyed, and cannot be used to further enhance local funds. There no public hutning areas where you go to shoot an elephant. All elephant hunting is done on the preserves under the careful management of the biologists. The healthiest, and most thriving elephant herds in all of Africa are in those countries that capitalize on hunting revenue for culling instead of government employee expense.

[Ruger480]

I respect each persons right to their own opinion, regardless of how they came by it. But I do find it interesting that people who claim to be animal rights activists often use the word defenseless when describing the animal in question. Mother nature is brutal and creatures with out defenses died out long ago. The reason weapons are used to hunt those animals is because without them, man is at a severe disadvantage. We are not fast, cannot fly, our eyesight and sense of smell is extremely poor. We freeze quite easily in cold weather. I could go on but you get the idea. There is nothing defenseless about any animal. To imply so is disrespectful in my opinion.

I do believe that hunters do more to put their money where there mouth is than the average activist. Giving a couple hundred here and there is not the same dropping thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) to harvest one animal.

Those countries in Africa where those hunts take place have other problems that exacerbate and complicate the issues concerning conservation. Safari hunts are only one piece of the puzzle, with out them who would pay for the game wardens to catch the poachers?

[leadcounsel]

Most elephants are in preserves and there "territorial range" is within the fernces of the preserves. Humans are not encroaching into the preserves. Granted, these preserves are huge, like fencing in a national forest, but are carefully managed and will only support a limited number of animals. When you exceed that limit, they must be culled, or they will destroy their own habitat, and the entire herd suffers. Animals to be culled are not just randomly selected, but are surplus animals that are least productive to the herd. You have two ways to cull them. You can either have government employees shoot them, or you can offer high priced hunting permits, and employ numerous locals who provide services for wealthy hunters who pump thousands into the local economy and and conservation efforts. The number of dead animals is the same. International, well intentioned do more marm than good laws will not allow the hunter to take any of the meat or animal parts with him out of the country. The locals eat the meat, and sadly, the ivory, if any, is destroyed, and cannot be used to further enhance local funds. There no public hutning areas where you go to shoot an elephant. All elephant hunting is done on the preserves under the careful management of the biologists. The healthiest, and most thriving elephant herds in all of Africa are in those countries that capitalize on hunting revenue for culling instead of government employee expense.

Well, this information is simply incorrect and I'll trust the actual organizations that are trying to save these creatures, versus people justifying their hunts.

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/enda...can_elephants/

Elephant populations across Africa are faring differently, with some remaining endangered and others now secure. Southern Africa is the stronghold for the species, with large and expanding populations.

Significant elephant populations are nevertheless confined to well-protected areas, which form only a fraction of total elephant range.

The species remains threatened by illegal hunting for meat and ivory, habitat loss and human-elephant conflict. Most range states do not have adequate capacity to protect and manage their herds. If conservation action is not forthcoming, elephants may become locally extinct in some parts of Africa within 50 years.

The African elephant once ranged across most of the African continent from the Mediterranean coast to the southern tip. It is thought there may have been as many as 3-5 million African elephants in the 1930s and 1940s.

However, in the wake of intensive hunting for trophies and tusks, elephant numbers fell dramatically throughout the continent from the 1950s. In the 1980s, for example, an estimated 100,000 elephants were being killed per year and up to 80% of herds were lost in some regions. In Kenya, the population plummeted by 85% between 1973 and 1989.

So, in summary, where there was once MILLIONS of elephants, HUNTERS are responsible for cutting their numbers down to a tiny fraction of what we once had.

There is tons of information about this subject, but OBVIOUSLY KILLING ELEPHANTS IS NOT THE SOLUTION... The same can be said for other creatures like big cats, great apes, and the others that HUNTERS are destroying in sickening numbers - whether legal or illegal, and whether for the jolly of the hunt or the trophy head or tusk or pelt... it's the same result for the animals. Death. And my kids may never get to see these creatures because selfish individuals killed them all.

If you really want to help, take that $ and donate it to the cause, rather than killing yet another animal... And that test will demonstrate a person's true intent on conservation versus just killing something.

[eastbank]

what a load of tripe, if all the hunting in the world were stopped you would soon see all animals that were hunted decline in the world. their numbers would soar for a short while ,than mother nature would take over along with the pouchers. thanks to hunters and their dollars we have more turkeys,deer and elk in my state since the late 1800,s. the land will only support so many animals and when they get to a point they die from many things and its not very pretty. with ducks its called limber neck and they die by the truck loads,with turkey is black head and they too die in large numbers, with deer its call cronic waste and the same think,they die in droves. i can only think of the buffalo being shot close to extinction and it was the government that allowed it to starve the plains indians, after hunting seasons were inacted and game laws inforced their are no shortages of legaly hunted animals. another thing,a tax on every thing connected with hunting goes to all states toward conserving animals and the sportsman ask for the tax. we have more deer killed by cars here than some states kill in their hunting seasons. the anti hunting crowd talk the talk,but don,t walk the walk. NO ANIMALS THAT ARE LEGALY HUNTED HAVE GONE EXTINCIT IN THE LAST 100 YEARS. eastbank.

[TimSr]

100% of the legal elephant hunting takes place on preserves, and not on what you perceive as the animals' traditional range. When a few tons of meat carrying 10 years wages worth of ivory wanders out of a preserve and into their "traditional range" in the midst of people whose families are starving, they don't last long.

WWF is not an orgnaization that is trying to save anything. They collect money, run TV commericals, and buy politicians. They complain a lot, and tell everyone else what they should be doing, but not a single dollar from WWF has ever gone into actually saving animals, upkeeping and managing a preserve, puchasing land, or restoring habitat. Not a single dollar has gone into the economic conditions that make desperate people kill them for their own survival. The are lobbyists, nothing more.

Yes, 3/4 of a century ago, uncontrolled and indiscriminant hunting nearly wiped out a lot of African species, as well as North American species. Then hunters wised up, and saved them, and continue to restore them.

Someone said these animals should be ranched or farmed, and they are pretty close to the African model. the only way local impoverished and starving people will ever care about the future of any wildlife is to give it commercial value that will benefit them. When foreign dollars are rolling into local economies for all the services that go along with accommodating foreign hunters of animals that need to be culled anyways, the people see them as something worth protecting.

[eastbank]

well said and all true, as i have seen it with my own eyes. thanks, eastbank.

[T. O'Heir]

Animal rights activists go out of their minds when a chicken is killed for dinner.
"...where there was once MILLIONS of elephants, HUNTERS are responsible for cutting their numbers down to a tiny fraction of what we once had..." Horse hockey. There were never millions of elephants and poachers and habitat loss(primarily for agriculture) reduced the numbers. China is the biggest importer of illegal ivory. Ivory stuff is a symbol of wealth in China. Little or no controls over the illegal trade either.

[leadcounsel]

One of the biggest issues here is hunting ethics.

As much as I detest hunters that kill common animals for sport (prarie dogs, coyotes, etc.), at least for now their numbers are not in jeopardy.

With the numbers of big cats, apes, elephants, sharks, and other amazing creatures in serious jeopardy, it is incumbent on humans to act with a bit more compassion and responsibility toward their survival. I'll footnote that we, as a human race, in our quest for more resources, have and continue to threaten the territories where these creatures live.

The argument that killing more of them somehow saves them is lost on me. Equally lost on me is how one could feel a sense of pride or accomplishment at killing such a majestic creature, particularly with the "enlightened" knowledge their numbers are struggling.

[Ruger480]

The argument that killing more of them somehow saves them is lost on me. Equally lost on me is how one could feel a sense of pride or accomplishment at killing such a majestic creature, particularly with the "enlightened" knowledge their numbers are struggling.

I'm not being flippant but if you still don't understand it's because you're not paying attention or, you don't want to.

I think what you really mean is that you understand exactly how hunting animals contributes to their survival more than animal rights groups actions do, but you don't like it and wish there were another viable option.

I'm curious, what is your opinion is on the plight of the snow goose?

[eastbank]

if they have only food for 200,000 and there are 500,000 of them, please tell me what do you do? do you let 300,000 starve to death and waste the meat and money that they would have brought had they been used as a cash crop? thats the problem in most of the africa countries. in some of the areas here in the U.S. they have to shoot the excess of deer or the whole herd may die, i guess you and the anti,s could try to force feed them birth controll, but that was tried and didn,t work. there are area,s in the U.S that animal,s have been reintroduced that had been hunted to low numbers due to no hunting laws and now there are mountain sheep,elk,buffalo,turkey and many more that are thriving because of the hunting laws and sporting dollars. AND NO ANIMALS ARE HUNTED BY TRUE SPORTSMEN THAT ARE STRUGGLING, EXCEPT FOR POUCHERS WHO DON,T GIVE A HOOT AND ONLY AFTER THE MONEY OR FOR FOOD TO FEED THEIR FAMILEYS. WELL THE BRIGHT SIDE IS THAT STATES HAVE ENACTED LAWS TO KEEP YOU OUT OF THE WOODS AND FIELDS BOTHERING LAWFULL HUNTERS. eastbank.