They want to eat meat

[silverscreenselect]

That's why personal, critical thinking is essential. Spock was there, on the ground, in the places you're discussing. Actual cash changed hands, from him and his ilk, to the individuals most benefited. The people who live there, every day. My critical thinking tells me those people, the ones who depend on game hunters for their livelihood, probably don't think the game hunters are doing it to prove their manliness, but even if they do, they don't care. They are being gainfully employed and are able to support their families.

Spock was treated to a dog and pony show meant to impress him. They've been putting on a show of gratitude to the "great benevolent white hunter" for a century and gotten quite good at it over the years. I've seen similar shows (without the gunfire) put on at some of the attractions on the cruises. I'm sure they are appreciative in the sense that it's better than nothing. But in many cases, their income comes and goes depending on the whim of the tourist trade and, in some cases, who's willing to do the work for the least pay.

But go ahead and believe Spock instead of what the objective studies (not those with an agenda) have shown. You would think that, if trophy hunting were so beneficial for the animals and provided so much money for conservation efforts, conservationists (who have to scramble for every buck they can get) would be welcoming them with open arms.

[tlynn78]

That's why personal, critical thinking is essential. Spock was there, on the ground, in the places you're discussing. Actual cash changed hands, from him and his ilk, to the individuals most benefited. The people who live there, every day. My critical thinking tells me those people, the ones who depend on game hunters for their livelihood, probably don't think the game hunters are doing it to prove their manliness, but even if they do, they don't care. They are being gainfully employed and are able to support their families.

Spock was treated to a dog and pony show meant to impress him. They've been putting on a show of gratitude to the "great benevolent white hunter" for a century and gotten quite good at it over the years. I've seen similar shows (without the gunfire) put on at some of the attractions on the cruises. I'm sure they are appreciative in the sense that it's better than nothing. But in many cases, their income comes and goes depending on the whim of the tourist trade and, in some cases, who's willing to do the work for the least pay.

But go ahead and believe Spock instead of what the objective studies (not those with an agenda) have shown. You would think that, if trophy hunting were so beneficial for the animals and provided so much money for conservation efforts, conservationists (who have to scramble for every buck they can get) would be welcoming them with open arms.

Well, see, he was there; you were not. So - yeah.

[silverscreenselect]

Well, see, he was there; you were not. So - yeah.

His ten days in country make him the world's leading authority on the beneficial effects of trophy hunting.

[tlynn78]

Well, see, he was there; you were not. So - yeah.

His ten days in country make him the world's leading authority on the beneficial effects of trophy hunting.

It puts him a bit ahead of you.

[Beebs52]

Well, see, he was there; you were not. So - yeah.

His ten days in country make him the world's leading authority on the beneficial effects of trophy hunting.

As do your zero days in country and biased Google searches.

[Spock]

>>>In your case, "granularity" means ignoring statistics in favor of a couple of personal anecdotes that make you feel better.<<<

You are an attorney and a skilled political debater. You can surely understand that I am using "Breakfast Farm" as a stand-in or example of thousands of similar properties.

It is not "Personal Anecdotes that make me feel better"-It is the fundamental African Wildlife Conservation question of our time.

"Given the huge amount of pressure on the resource, by millions of poor Africans, how can you conserve wildlife and wildlands on the vast areas that are not suitable for photographic tourism?"*

You can not even begin to understand the question-let alone formulate a reasonable answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------
*"Game Changer" does a good job of pointing out some of the bad environmental effects of industrial tourism in places like the Serengeti, but that is obviously a "Bridge Way too Far" for SSS to begin to grasp.

[silverscreenselect]

"Given the huge amount of pressure on the resource, by millions of poor Africans, how can you conserve wildlife and wildlands on the vast areas that are not suitable for photographic tourism?"*

You can not even begin to understand the question-let alone formulate a reasonable answer.

I do understand the question, but you choose to treat it as only allowing two attempted solutions: a complete ban on hunting or throwing hunting open to those (almost exclusively foreign tourists) who can afford the exorbitant permit fees.

I also don't understand your assumption that these areas are not "suitable for photographic tourism." You were there; you took plenty of photos. The ones I saw were very good photos. I'm sure others would love to go to the same locales and have the same opportunities to take those photos. Unless of course they're afraid of being shot by hunters with poor aim.

[Catfish]

We saw your letter in the paper, Tim:

Hee-hee. This is the road my husband takes to work. As evidenced by the deer guts on his car. He's not Tim, though.

[Spock]

Well, see, he was there; you were not. So - yeah.

His ten days in country make him the world's leading authority on the beneficial effects of trophy hunting.

So this is the level of response from the guy who has been the expert here on everything for years of political debates. I know it doesn't rise to the level of 8 minutes on Google, and I am not an expert. However, a lifetime of immersion in theory (book 'larnin) backed up with a week and half of solid field experience, supported by conversations/interviews with the experts is worth something.

I am not an expert, but I have read the experts, I know what the experts say. and I have seen the experts(of all races and economic spectrums) in action.

I was only there for 10/12 days or whatever, but God works in mysterious ways, and I saw and experienced so much more than was planned. Among them

1) A first-hand solid experience with African government corruption.

2) A day of experiencing "Industrial Tourism" in Chobe National Park in Botswana-It was better than African Kingdom at Disneyland, but not much.

3) Essentially, the entire spectrum (as close as you can get in 10 days) of African wildlife lands-from the industrial tourism of the national parks to government hunting to well-managed community to not-so-well managed (Poached out and land converted to other uses) community lands.

4) In a way, my African experience is epitomized by the Botswana elephant overpopulation experience as I talked about in my blog/journal. I had read extensively about the elephant overpopulation in certain areas of southern Africa, now I have seen the damage and heard first-hand about the problem through time.

In short, my Africa stuff is theory supported by field work supplemented by interviews with experts.

SSS>>>I do understand the question, but you choose to treat it as only allowing two attempted solutions: a complete ban on hunting or throwing hunting open to those (almost exclusively foreign tourists) who can afford the exorbitant permit fees. <<<<

You are projecting here. You are the one who is eliminating out of hand "Sport Hunting.

SSS>>>I also don't understand your assumption that these areas are not "suitable for photographic tourism." You were there; you took plenty of photos. The ones I saw were very good photos. I'm sure others would love to go to the same locales and have the same opportunities to take those photos. Unless of course they're afraid of being shot by hunters with poor aim.<<<<

I was so hoping you would say something like this as it takes me where I want to go-but I will get to it later.

[Spock]

Spock was treated to a dog and pony show meant to impress him. They've been putting on a show of gratitude to the "great benevolent white hunter" for a century and gotten quite good at it over the years. I've seen similar shows (without the gunfire) put on at some of the attractions on the cruises. I'm sure they are appreciative in the sense that it's better than nothing. But in many cases, their income comes and goes depending on the whim of the tourist trade and, in some cases, who's willing to do the work for the least pay.

But go ahead and believe Spock instead of what the objective studies (not those with an agenda) have shown. You would think that, if trophy hunting were so beneficial for the animals and provided so much money for conservation efforts, conservationists (who have to scramble for every buck they can get) would be welcoming them with open arms.

Once again-you have an answer for everything, but you have no clue what you are talking about. You are the very essence of the "Ugly American." You so casually insult people without even realizing it.

We are in contact with our Government Game Scout (Game Warden) to this day. A couple of months after the trip, he sent us pictures of his wife and daughter. He was very proud of his family and he wanted us to have a glimpse of that aspect of his life. I feel very honored by that.

A couple months ago(a year after the trip) he sent us an invitation to join him on GOOGLE PLUS. I am not a member of that and I haven't put in the time to figure out-but you have reminded me that I owe him an email.

Is this all just part of the "Dog and Pony Show?"

[Spock]

Just pondering a thought that has never occurred to SSS (or the anti-hunting community in general).

Given the choice, a rural African might prefer to be around hunters rather than to be around photo-tourists.

[Spock]

SSS>>>I also don't understand your assumption that these areas are not "suitable for photographic tourism." You were there; you took plenty of photos. The ones I saw were very good photos. I'm sure others would love to go to the same locales and have the same opportunities to take those photos. Unless of course they're afraid of being shot by hunters with poor aim.<<<<

As I said earlier this little gem gives me some rich fodder to work with. However, before I give you Spock's Analysis of African Tourism, sans Hunting. (TM) I am going to throw a homework question on the table for you to think about over the weekend.

"Would a massive increase in the supply of photo-tourism opportunities, be met with a corresponding massive increase in the supply of photo-tourists?"

To put it in terms of the BORED-"Just how many Tanstaafl's" are out there?"

[Spock]

It dawned on me that this has been a one-way street. An attack on, and a defense of, the Hunting Model. Obviously, I am happier than a pig in mud about it, but we are missing something in this thread. We haven't seen a defense, or even an explanation, of the Photo-tourism Model.

Perhaps SSS would care to explain how the Photo-tourism model would work on a place like Breakfast Farm.

1) What tourism market segment would they pursue?

2) What infrastructure will they have to improve/construct to serve the expectations of this market segment?

3) How will the Photo-tourism Model preserve game and give villagers a stake in preserving wildlife and wildlands in a way that is superior to the Hunting Model.

Also keep in mind the initial premise of this thread-"They Want to eat meat".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some might think I am unfair to throw "Breakfast Farm" in SSS's face, because he hasn't been there and doesn't know the first thing about it. However, that is my point. He hasn't been there and he doesn't know the first thing about it, but he has been 100% assertive of the superiority of the Photo-tourism model over the Hunting Model for Breakfast Farm and a little substantive defense of this position would be nice.

[Spock]

>>>if trophy hunting were so beneficial for the animals and provided so much money for conservation efforts, conservationists (who have to scramble for every buck they can get) would be welcoming them with open arms.<<<

The conservationists are saying that-but people like you stick their fingers in their ears and say "I can't hear you."

Let's step back and define the African Conservation Problem as related to this thread.

Spock's Analysis of the African Conservation Problem #1 (TM)

The grand underlying concept is the field of Island Biogeography. Simply put, the parks that the tourists see are increasingly isolated natural islands in a sea of development. Bad conservation things happen on islands. The protection of as much of the outlying areas as possible is crucial for African bio-diversity and the protection of the national parks.

I recommend David Quammen's "Song of the Dodo" as an excellent lay read on Island Biogeography. I would recommend this book to anyone here, even without this thread. It gives as huge shout out to Alfred Russell Wallace, Darwin's contemporary and competitor in coming up with the Theory of Evolution and goes on from there.

It is a good read people.

[silverscreenselect]

A couple months ago(a year after the trip) he sent us an invitation to join him on GOOGLE PLUS. I am not a member of that and I haven't put in the time to figure out-but you have reminded me that I owe him an email.

Is this all just part of the "Dog and Pony Show?"

No, it's good business. For the same reason, my guide in Costa Rica invited me to connect with him on Facebook and LinkedIn. The more people you connect with, the more likely you'll turn up in a search.

[silverscreenselect]

The conservationists are saying that-but people like you stick their fingers in their ears and say "I can't hear you."

Conservationsists aren't saying that; one conservation writer (and by the way a guy who's gotten so burned out by book writing he's announced he's quitting, although not for any reason due to this book) said that.

It's a typical conservative argument. Find someone, anywhere, with a credential who's willing to support what they say and they ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

[silverscreenselect]

It dawned on me that this has been a one-way street. An attack on, and a defense of, the Hunting Model. Obviously, I am happier than a pig in mud about it, but we are missing something in this thread. We haven't seen a defense, or even an explanation, of the Photo-tourism Model.

Perhaps SSS would care to explain how the Photo-tourism model would work on a place like Breakfast Farm.

1) What tourism market segment would they pursue?

They could pursue the same market segment that most other African countries could pursue, those interested in seeing nature and the wildlife there without blasting animals to bits. The area where you were is close enough to Victoria Falls to allow side excursions which would make combination Victoria Falls-wildlife vacations quite attractive. That's not going to happen in the current regime because much of the land is tied up in long-term leases to hunting concerns who obviously have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

It's no surprise that you got to hear glowing recommendations from those natives you may have gotten an opportunity to talk to. The hunting groups gave a good bit of say as to whom to dispense their bounty to. I got the same B.S. on cruises from fellow passengers about how wonderful and happy all the locals were because they were given a carefully staged excursion that showed them exactly what the tour companies wanted them to see.

[Spock]

>>>if trophy hunting were so beneficial for the animals and provided so much money for conservation efforts, conservationists (who have to scramble for every buck they can get) would be welcoming them with open arms.<<<

The conservationists are saying that-but people like you stick their fingers in their ears and say "I can't hear you."

Let's step back and define the African Conservation Problem as related to this thread.

Spock's Analysis of the African Conservation Problem #1 (TM)

The grand underlying concept is the field of Island Biogeography. Simply put, the parks that the tourists see are increasingly isolated natural islands in a sea of development. Bad conservation things happen on islands. The protection of as much of the outlying areas as possible is crucial for African bio-diversity and the protection of the national parks.

I recommend David Quammen's "Song of the Dodo" as an excellent lay read on Island Biogeography. I would recommend this book to anyone here, even without this thread. It gives as huge shout out to Alfred Russell Wallace, Darwin's contemporary and competitor in coming up with the Theory of Evolution and goes on from there.

It is a good read people.

SSS>>>more important, the land could be put to better conservation use by banning trophy hunting entirely, in which case the increased tourist revenue from non-hunting would make up for any loss the locals might have due to the loss of a few hunters)<<<

Are you a child? What a wonderfully naive, innocent view you have of the world. Remove hunting from 10's of millions of acres across the African landscape and those lands will be magically converted to tourism resorts and the tourists and the natives and the animals will gambol happily together.

Spock's Analysis of the African Conservation Problem #2: (TM)

The resource (wildlife and wildlands) is under tremendous pressure by millions of poor Africans. In the vernacular of this thread, "They Want to Eat Meat."

SSS has never read (or heard firsthand) what happens when the anti-poaching patrols cease and/or boundary protections of a protected area are relaxed in the slightest. There is nothing left. There is not an antelope, not even a bird left. The streams are fished out with small, mesh nets. There is nothing left. This is not the kind of place that will attract photo-tourists.

When we were on Breakfast Farm, my 2 PH's (each with 20 years experience of tourist and hunting guiding) repeatedly commented about how (relatively) well-managed (conservation-wise) it was compared to all the other village lands they had seen.

At one point, we went a ways back into the bush after a large Kudu (The one that got away). They commented that normally, in the distance we walked, it would be common to come across about 40 poacher's snares. We didn't find any. I suspect areas with huge amounts of poacher's snares present might have a small problem attracting and keeping tourists.

When we got back a friend asked me, "Why don't they just let the poor people have the resource?" The simple answer is that it would be eating their seed corn. The locals might eat (relatively) well for a year (or 5)-but then what? Their would be no game left to attract tourists (or hunters) and then more cattle and goats would be pushed into more areas.

Spock's African Tourism Analysis #1(TM)

Based on what I saw and heard, Breakfast Farm ranks the among the best-managed "Community-Lands" on the continent for conservation. No one who has ever been to Breakfast Farm would ever recommend it to anyone as a location for a photo-tourism destination.

[Spock]

I have another homework question for you.


Which scenario is more likely?

A) Assume Hunting is banned across Africa: Tens of millions of acres are suddenly converted to tourism resorts. Poaching and boundary protections are strengthened across these vast areas and African wildlife and rural communities enter a new heydey.

OR
B) The pressure put on the resource by millions of poor Africans starts (continues?) to degrade the high-profile national parks. Poaching/grazing etc, expands into and overwhelms the defenses of these treasured areas. To say nothing of the degradation of the areas outside the parks.

[Spock]

They could pursue the same market segment that most other African countries could pursue, those interested in seeing nature and the wildlife there without blasting animals to bits. The area where you were is close enough to Victoria Falls to allow side excursions which would make combination Victoria Falls-wildlife vacations quite attractive. That's not going to happen in the current regime because much of the land is tied up in long-term leases to hunting concerns who obviously have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

It is interesting that SSS automatically assumes the economic viability of the Tourism Model in the Victoria Falls area.

Matetsi 1

I have most often talked about "Breakfast Farm" because this is the most interesting property from a conservation perspective. However, most of my hunting took place on a government hunting concession known as Matetsi 1. We were forced over to Breakfast because of corruption problems.

An interesting factoid is that our camp there was originally a photographic resort. For whatever reason, It had obviously failed in that iteration.

It had several wonderful attributes as a tourism destination, but they were not enough and it still failed.

1) Proximity to Victoria Falls

2) Large amount of game present

3) Scenic terrain

4) Luxurious accommodations-We speculated that it may have been originally designed to host government conferences or something.

Matetsi 7

Matetsi 7 is 100,000 acre concession that has been solely reserved for photographic safaris since 1994. This property is immediately outside of Victoria Falls.The status of the business there appears to be in flux.

http://matetsiwaterlodge.com/

The last report from TripAdvisor is from 2012 and indicates that the business was closed and that new owners were taking over. I haven't been able to figure out if it is open now, or under a new name or what. If somebody wants to follow the Google trail or call them-go ahead, I would like to know the status of the business.

However, at this time, the viability of the business there is at least questionable.

[silverscreenselect]

Although getting accurate information about what's going on in Zimbabwe is somewhat difficult, my research has indicated that (1) the federal government is highly corrupt (which no one disputes), and (2) they seem to play favorites with hunting interests over other interests, including blocking passage to "protected" lands for non-hunting concerns. A system in which the amount of conservation depends on which group is in favor with a corrupt central government is not ideal for conservation or for the locals. At least, Robert Mugabe, who is the president of Zimbabwe, is 90 years old and won't be around that much longer.

http://www.animals24-7.org/2014/04/23/e ... -zimbabwe/

All the economic data I've seen shows that non-hunting tourism generates far more revenue for the local economy than does hunting tourism. Spock himself mentioned (I may be wrong but I think that's the gist of what I got from his posts) that he and his wife were the only people at the camp that week, with a French couple the week before. You can't keep a full time staff going with that type of revenue, so it's a bare bones as needed operation, and when they're not needed, the locals aren't gainfully employed by the hunting lodge. What hunting tourism does generate are big permit fees that go largely to the government officials who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo going.

Here's some states from an article in African Geographic. It's from Botswana but I'd guess the relative amounts are fairly similar (this post is from Facebook because it's the easiest to follow table, but I've seen the stats quoted in a number of places):

https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-tro ... 8248684575

You have a system that "succeeds" because of government corruption in which very little of the money actually goes to those most in need and most goes to tour operators and government officials.

Banning trophy hunting doesn't necessarily mean banning efforts to intelligently control wildlife population.

[Spock]

>>>if trophy hunting were so beneficial for the animals and provided so much money for conservation efforts, conservationists (who have to scramble for every buck they can get) would be welcoming them with open arms.<<<

The conservationists are saying that-but people like you stick their fingers in their ears and say "I can't hear you."

Let's step back and define the African Conservation Problem as related to this thread.

Spock's Analysis of the African Conservation Problem #1 (TM)

The grand underlying concept is the field of Island Biogeography. Simply put, the parks that the tourists see are increasingly isolated natural islands in a sea of development. Bad conservation things happen on islands. The protection of as much of the outlying areas as possible is crucial for African bio-diversity and the protection of the national parks.

I recommend David Quammen's "Song of the Dodo" as an excellent lay read on Island Biogeography. I would recommend this book to anyone here, even without this thread. It gives as huge shout out to Alfred Russell Wallace, Darwin's contemporary and competitor in coming up with the Theory of Evolution and goes on from there.

It is a good read people.

SSS>>>more important, the land could be put to better conservation use by banning trophy hunting entirely, in which case the increased tourist revenue from non-hunting would make up for any loss the locals might have due to the loss of a few hunters)<<<

Are you a child? What a wonderfully naive, innocent view you have of the world. Remove hunting from 10's of millions of acres across the African landscape and those lands will be magically converted to tourism resorts and the tourists and the natives and the animals will gambol happily together.

Spock's Analysis of the African Conservation Problem #2: (TM)

The resource (wildlife and wildlands) is under tremendous pressure by millions of poor Africans. In the vernacular of this thread, "They Want to Eat Meat."

SSS has never read (or heard firsthand) what happens when the anti-poaching patrols cease and/or boundary protections of a protected area are relaxed in the slightest. There is nothing left. There is not an antelope, not even a bird left. The streams are fished out with small, mesh nets. There is nothing left. This is not the kind of place that will attract photo-tourists.

When we were on Breakfast Farm, my 2 PH's (each with 20 years experience of tourist and hunting guiding) repeatedly commented about how (relatively) well-managed (conservation-wise) it was compared to all the other village lands they had seen.

At one point, we went a ways back into the bush after a large Kudu (The one that got away). They commented that normally, in the distance we walked, it would be common to come across about 40 poacher's snares. We didn't find any. I suspect areas with huge amounts of poacher's snares present might have a small problem attracting and keeping tourists.

When we got back a friend asked me, "Why don't they just let the poor people have the resource?" The simple answer is that it would be eating their seed corn. The locals might eat (relatively) well for a year (or 5)-but then what? Their would be no game left to attract tourists (or hunters) and then more cattle and goats would be pushed into more areas.

Spock's Analysis of the African Conservation Problem #3 (TM)

Resentment:

SSS Has repeatedly mentioned the resentment that locals feel towards and it there in certain cases. However, as I said before, Kenya (with no hunting) is the poster child is the poster child of resentment to wildlife and tourists. I may get into this more in a future analysis of the Kenya situation.

An extreme example from Kenya's Amboseli National Park in 2012.

https://www.safarious.com/en/posts/1692

Pull Quote>>>Since a few days, Maasai warriors within the Amboseli ecosystem rose up in protest by hunting down the area's elephant, lion and buffalo, to try and force KWS to better allocate resources to the community, given that the Maasai are the ones who must daily interact with the majority of the animals. The Maasai community currently earns only 2% of the revenue from the Amboseli gate collection revenue.<<<<

This resentment that he prattles on about is not a "Tourism Thing, neither is it a "Hunting Thing". It is an "Africa Thing." It is what happens when the local people do not have a stake in the situation. In the vernacular of this thread-"They want to eat meat."

The more stake the locals have in the situation -the less resentment there is towards hunters or tourists.

[Spock]

I have another homework question for people to think about.

SSS (and the anti-hunting Community in general) is fond of citing nation-wide statistics about the irrelevance of hunting to the tourism economy of African countries.

Question on the table: The Vermont leaf-viewing season is an irrelevant factor in the USA's nationwide tourism intake. Does this mean that the Vermont leaf-viewing season is irrelevant to Vermont?

[silverscreenselect]

Question on the table: The Vermont leaf-viewing season is an irrelevant factor in the USA's nationwide tourism intake. Does this mean that the Vermont leaf-viewing season is irrelevant to Vermont?

No, but if tourists going to Vermont had to pay huge 'permit fees to the governor of Vermont to watch the leaves and overall tourism dwindled as a result, it would be a different story.

[Spock]

Question on the table: The Vermont leaf-viewing season is an irrelevant factor in the USA's nationwide tourism intake. Does this mean that the Vermont leaf-viewing season is irrelevant to Vermont?

No, but if tourists going to Vermont had to pay huge 'permit fees to the governor of Vermont to watch the leaves and overall tourism dwindled as a result, it would be a different story.

OK, I will bite. How does African hunting cause overall tourism to dwindle? I suspect you will cite your usual fantasy fear of stray gunfire and that is fine, please include it.

It was interesting when we moved from Matetsi (a ranger protected area) to Breakfast, how things kicked up a notch. The awareness level of both PH's went higher. Their comments were that you just never know what you will find on community lands. For example, there is a higher chance of running across a wounded buffalo nursing a grudge with a poacher's arrow in his gut. Sound like an area you might want to take tourists into?

Stray gunfire might be an issue in certain areas, but I can guarant-damn-tee this is an exponentially bigger problem in the poaching areas than it is in the regulated hunting areas where government rangers knew our location to a pinpoint.