They want to eat meat

[silverscreenselect]

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.

I guess it's useless for me to actually post sources as I have a number of times in this thread since you don't care to be bothered by facts gathered by those who had a lot more exposure to what's going on in Africa than you managed in your one week of being shepherded around. Instead, you view yourself as the resident authority due to this massive amount of experience. I've had about as much time "in country" on my cruises (combined) as you got during your safari, but I know that what I was shown was not an accurate representation of what's going on in those countries.

Nevertheless, as I pointed out and as has been confirmed a number of places, in Zimbabwe at least, the government plays favorites and has been quite active in restricting access to certain prime would-be tourist areas to favored interests. That's not surprising since they make a lot more money off the hunting permit fees than they do off the fees they could make from standard tourism.

[Spock]

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.

It is kind of funny that SSS, whose preferred method of helping Africa is to send cash by the boatload, is suddenly playing the corruption card like he invented it. Find something on Google, did you?

[silverscreenselect]

It is kind of funny that SSS, whose preferred method of helping Africa is to send cash by the boatload, is suddenly playing the corruption card like he invented it. Find something on Google, did you?

No one said that getting aid to those in need in Africa is always easy. But it can be done and it has been done, by those who are willing to devote a lot more time and effort and know more about what's going on there than someone who's gone on one hunting trip and gotten the royal tour.

There's a lot of information out there, from multiple, independent reliable sources. You conveniently choose to ignore it because you are peaceably content in your own experiences.

[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.

As near as I can follow SSS's reasoning through this process-it appears to be his repeated contention that the mere presence of protected reserves set aside for hunting causes overall tourism to dwindle.

A quick global look at overall African tourism would indicate that its major problems relate to "Africa Stuff. Ebola, Nairobi terrorism, the unrest in Amboseli-etc are the kinds of things that scare people away from Africa.

But it would be interesting to take a closer look at what I believe to be his contention.

I think he is giving the typical tourist to much credit. The typical tourist who goes to Africa to see the animals is barely cognizant of the major national parks that they visit, I suspect they haven't put too much time into analyzing the Matetsi Safari Area.

I highly doubt that there are busloads of Japanese tourists who consider signing up for their Bucket List safaris, but then after extensive analysis of the Victoria Falls area, learn of the Matetsi Safari area and decide not to go.

In fact, I submit that the bulk of the tourists to Africa are not even aware that safari hunting still exists or, just as likely, are not bothered by it.

Both of my PH's had 20 years of mixed experience of guiding both tourists and hunters. We heard lots of "Phototourist Stories." Anyway, I asked them what the tourists thought, or said, about hunting. Basically, they said it never comes up. However, once in awhile the guys in a tourist group will ask about hunting and then they discuss it, but in these cases, it wasn't an adversarial situation.

I would imagine they have a strict policy of never bringing up the fact to the tourists that they are also hunting guides-just in case they have an SSS in their group.

[Spock]

http://antipoaching.zambezedeltasafaris.com/

I read a longer article about these guys-tried to find it online, but I found this short synopsis on their website. It touches on many of the things I have talked about like poaching and community involvement and how game populations can be built up in a hunting concession.

This is how conservation works on the ground in Africa.

You have to scroll down a bit to get past the Boddington blurb.

[silverscreenselect]

As near as I can follow SSS's reasoning through this process-it appears to be his repeated contention that the mere presence of protected reserves set aside for hunting causes overall tourism to dwindle.

I highly doubt that there are busloads of Japanese tourists who consider signing up for their Bucket List safaris, but then after extensive analysis of the Victoria Falls area, learn of the Matetsi Safari area and decide not to go.

You are probably right that "busloads" of Japanese tourists don't carefully consider where they are going. But a number of would be tourists are very aware of environmental and conservation issues and do make decisions as to which countries to visit for eco-tourism on that basis. Zambia has lifted its ban on trophy hunting within the last two months and there are already extensive boycott efforts ongoing. The total number of hunters in a country during the course of a year isn't large (although the government can rake in a nice chunk of permit fees), so it doesn't take too many boycotting tourists to offset that.

And, even those tourists who don't care about hunting per se do care if they don't get to see the animals they want to see. Overhunting has largely decimated the big cats and elephants (who most tourists want to see). Your buddy Russ Broom gives hunters the chance to bag elephants, lions, and leopards on his longer safaris, as do most of the other tour operators. Admittedly, there's supposed to be a quota on the number of permits issued, but when you've got very high permit fees involved, it's easy for the government and the tour operators to convince themselves that just a few more leopard wouldn't hurt.

In Zimbabwe, as I noted in the materials I cited that you conveniently ignored, the government goes even further, denying access to non-hunting parties to some of the best wildlife areas and setting them aside exclusively for hunting groups who pay the big fees. No one is going to want to go out on a photographic trip if the government won't let them into the areas where they can actually see the animals.

[Spock]

SSS>>> I've had about as much time "in country" on my cruises (combined) as you got during your safari,<<<

OK, enlighten me, what do your canned cruise ship experiences teach us about African conservation-besides you realizing that they were canned experiences. Everybody understands that aspect of your argument.

Just pondering another thought that could never occur to SSS. It is likely that the presence of safari hunters in the area, on the plane etc-adds a whiff of adventure about the trip for the average tourist.

When I went it was the busy hunting time and there were a lot of hunters on the planes to South Africa and Victoria Falls. We all were wearing bush clothes, because you pack light and that is what you have.

For most tourists, Africa is a Bucket List-once in a lifetime deal. The presence of 50 people on the plane wearing bush clothes highlights the fact the that they are not going to Disneyland. Africa is a special, unique and "Adventurous" place.

Even on the flight from Minneapolis to Atlanta, I was wearing my bush clothes and a group of college/high school kids were obviously curious about me. Mrs. S overheard one of them say "He has a zebra on his luggage tag." So even on a routine flight from Mpls to Atlanta-there was a small whiff of Africa in the air.

On Day 3-because of the corruption problems-we were treated to a private tour of Chobe National Park. We ate breakfast and lunch with a group of people and then Mrs. S and I were treated to a private jeep and boat tour. However, these vehicles traveled roughly concurrently with the Breakfast/Lunch group. Once again, we had our bush clothes on and you could see that people were wondering about us and who we were-given the outfits and the private tour.

So I like to think that we brought a whiff of adventure and Africa to the day-trippers from Vic Falls.

[Spock]

Spock's Analysis of the African Conservation Problem #4(tm)

Phototourism does not even protect the high-profile national parks from poaching:

Google "Poaching" and the African national park of your choice and you can see that this is a continent-wide problem.Here is an elephant poisoning case that occurred in Hwange National Park that was just south of where I was.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/25/world/afr ... -poaching/

However, a particularly heart-breaking current case is the rhino poaching epidemic in South Africa's Kruger National Park.

This is news of a recent case from HuffPo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/2 ... 60072.html

Note that 3 park workers were arrested in this case.

This link provides a little more background.
http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark- ... 25183.html

Kruger is arguably one of the highest profile parks on the continent and it is indisputable that it is the best protected. It is still not able to get a handle on poaching. If even Kruger can not be protected-how can phototourism begin to stop poaching in more remote areas?

Note that the ideal scenario for SSS(assuming economic viability) is to bring tens of thousands of tourists and however many thousands of workers into the relatively pristine, ecological gem that is the Matetsi Safari Area.

Poaching levels would obviously increase exponentially under SSS's ideal scenario for the Matetsi.

My PH told me that insider involvement in Rhino poaching is so pervasive that it has to be a well-kept secret about when rhinos are moved or else the trucks are stopped-the rhino is shot on the truck and the horn cut off right there.

[silverscreenselect]

So I like to think that we brought a whiff of adventure and Africa to the day-trippers from Vic Falls.

Are you sure it wasn't a whiff of what you'd stepped in?

[silverscreenselect]

Poaching is a problem in all of Africa, regardless of whether trophy hunting is allowed. However, trophy hunting has led to severe depletion of populations in some areas:

While hunters and hunting advocates point to large profits being made in hunting of animals in Africa, particularly the Big 5 – water buffalo, lion, leopard, elephant and rhinoceros – the reality is that photographic tourism far outdistances any money made in hunting safaris.

In Botswana, tourism ranks as the second largest industry behind diamond mining, and the economic growth of tourism has grown by at least 14 percent each of the last eight years. As a landlocked country, the majority of tourists flock to this majestic wildlife refuge in search of a glimpse of their favorite animal, not to shoot one. In fact, tourism now makes up almost 11 percent of their annual GDP.

However, in a 2007 study conducted by Peter Lindsey the impact that hunting industry played in actually protecting and conserving animals was studied. Lindsey argued that if trophy hunting was well managed, the profits could be utilized towards anti-poaching efforts and more importantly, private land owners would have financial benefits of reintroducing and protecting certain species, such as the rhinocerous, in an attempt to lure hunters to their land and reap the economic benefits. However, that same study examined Botswana specifically and trophy hunting only represented approximately .1 percent of GDP, as opposed to phototourism which represented 11 percent.

The move by Botswana was prompted by the drastic diminishments of certain species, as they discovered that 11 species declined by more than 61 percent since 1996. Some of the most severely affected were the Ostrich and Wildebeasts which saw their numbers dwindle by more than 90 percent. The potential for hunting to completely eliminate certain species was too much of chance for the country to take, so they yanked the plug on the entire industry.

Critics of the decision argue that it will encourage poaching over the long-term in Botswana and that the move will cost many professional hunters their jobs. Many point to Kenya – which outlawed game hunting in 1977 and has never rescinded the ban. They state that poaching in the country has reached alarming levels and the same would happen in Botswana and Zambia if they continue to block potential hunters.

While poaching continues to be a problem in all African nations, Kenya boasts $USD 800 million in revenue annually from safaris, a figure that significantly adds to the national economy. In addition, recent revelations of major poaching violation in both Tanzania and South Africa – two of the largest hunting profiteers on the continent – show that even countries that encourage trophy hunting are not immune from illegal hunting. South African rhinocerous poaching has reached epidemic levels and major problems with elephant and giraffe poaching in Tanzania have driven a call to action. Many blame Chinese buyers for their interest in ivory and rhino horns.

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2013/01/2 ... -wildlife/

[Spock]

You are probably right that "busloads" of Japanese tourists don't carefully consider where they are going. But a number of would be tourists are very aware of environmental and conservation issues and do make decisions as to which countries to visit for eco-tourism on that basis. Zambia has lifted its ban on trophy hunting within the last two months and there are already extensive boycott efforts ongoing. The total number of hunters in a country during the course of a year isn't large (although the government can rake in a nice chunk of permit fees), so it doesn't take too many boycotting tourists to offset that.

And, even those tourists who don't care about hunting per se do care if they don't get to see the animals they want to see. Overhunting has largely decimated the big cats and elephants (who most tourists want to see). Your buddy Russ Broom gives hunters the chance to bag elephants, lions, and leopards on his longer safaris, as do most of the other tour operators. Admittedly, there's supposed to be a quota on the number of permits issued, but when you've got very high permit fees involved, it's easy for the government and the tour operators to convince themselves that just a few more leopard wouldn't hurt.

In Zimbabwe, as I noted in the materials I cited that you conveniently ignored, the government goes even further, denying access to non-hunting parties to some of the best wildlife areas and setting them aside exclusively for hunting groups who pay the big fees. No one is going to want to go out on a photographic trip if the government won't let them into the areas where they can actually see the animals.

Look class, SSS has learned a shiny new buzzword-"Overhunting". Spending a little time on the anti-hunting websites, are we?

You are going to have to help me out here. You are making two contradictory arguments in the quoted, above.

A) My buddy, Russ Broom, and his ilk have so decimated the wildlife in areas like the Matetsi that there is nothing left for the tourists to see.

or

B) Areas like the Matetsi are so rich in wildlife that everybody in the world should be able to see it.

Which way are we going with this? Obviously, we have been following "B" for a few days, are we going to continue that way or are we taking "A" out for a test drive or are we committing full-time to "A." I am open, it is up to you I guess.

However, my next conservation analysis is based on "B" and I am kind of proud of this one so I will be on "B" for a while yet. I guess you can go either way you want and I will see you on the other side.

Life is funny sometimes. Mrs Spock and I went on the trip because it was a grand adventure, probably the adventure of a lifetime. Nothing can ever compare to the feeling of going into the African bush after a really big Kudu(the one that got away) and coming across a breeding herd of wild elephants at a fairly close distance and watching everybody get deadly serious because you never can tell what will happen when you run into a breeding herd of elephants.

I am shaking my head at myself for feeling for a few days that I had to defend this choice of a grand adventure to somebody whose preferred activity is to go on canned cruises and who wets their pants at the very thought that somebody, somewhere, might have a gun and who wouldn't know adventure if it bit him in the ass, unless, of course, it was an action-adventure movie.

[littlebeast13]

Where are all the people who once told me and youknowwho to get a room?

lb13

[silverscreenselect]

Life is funny sometimes. Mrs Spock and I went on the trip because it was a grand adventure, probably the adventure of a lifetime. Nothing can ever compare to the feeling of going into the African bush after a really big Kudu(the one that got away) and coming across a breeding herd of wild elephants at a fairly close distance and watching everybody get deadly serious because you never can tell what will happen when you run into a breeding herd of elephants.

I am shaking my head at myself for feeling for a few days that I had to defend this choice of a grand adventure to somebody whose preferred activity is to go on canned cruises and who wets their pants at the very thought that somebody, somewhere, might have a gun and who wouldn't know adventure if it bit him in the ass, unless, of course, it was an action-adventure movie.

I don't have to spend thousands of dollars and blast away at a defenseless kudu with a high powered rifle while I've got professionals standing watch over me in case a really dangerous animal gets within shouting distance of me in order to prove I'm a man. Notwithstanding your claims about a grand adventure, apparently you do. My preferred activity is cruising because it gives me an opportunity to relax for a week and overindulge in food, drink, games of chance, etc., not because I feel it's a grand adventure. For what it's worth I've been on several "grand adventures" in my life, none of which involved me taking aim at a kudu. And I've been closer to a really dangerous animal than you'll probably ever be, not the boar (which was close enough), but a Bengal tiger that I got to stand about a foot away from. That wasn't a grand adventure; it was a carefully controlled photo op, but I have to say I was fascinated by the idea of it so I paid the $5 to get my picture taken.

As for overhunting, you just don't get it. Notwithstanding your grand claims of conservationism, as you yourself indicated, there's a limited number of people desperately in need of a grand adventure, so guys like Russ Broom can't afford to turn anyone away. And when I looked at his price chart, it's clear that the longer (more profitable) safaris are the ones that offer people shots at elephants, big cats, and the highly desirable targets. While Russ and the others may claim they'll put a limit on the number of kills they allow, it's very easy for them to talk themselves into saying that another one or two won't matter in the grand scheme of thing and jiggle their numbers to justify it. It's even easier for some corrupt government officials to jiggle those same numbers to justify issuing just a couple more permits. And then, your abundant wildlife area isn't so abundant any more, as has happened in a number of countries. Maybe Russ himself isn't that way, but there's a number of outfitters and some of them may not be as high minded, and you can guess if Russ turns some guy down because he's allowed too many elephant kills, that grand adventurer will just surf the web some more until he finds someone who will make room for just one more.

[Spock]

Several days ago, SSS posted>>>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 am really glad that he liked the photos, however what he failed to notice that the photos he admired at thesmokeofafrica.blogspot.com are clearly labeled as taken in the Chobe National Park in Botswana. I will have an upcoming analysis about his failure to notice the location as it supports a pet theory of mine.

It has been a repeated contention of his that thousands of people should have the same opportunity to take these photos as I did. Well, guess what? Thousands did have that opportunity the same day, as Chobe National Park is the poster child for industrial tourism. Every 3 minutes, jeep follows jeep follows jeep down the same trail as thousands of people did exactly the same thing yesterday and tomorrow and next Thursday etc. He could go there next June and take, essentially, the same pictures I took.

The Victoria Falls area is wonderful tapestry that serves every conceivable segment of the African tourism market. One aspect of this tapestry is the "Breakfast Farm Complex" that essentially serves the local meat hunting market. One reason they were so tickled to have me there was while they got the money from those hunters-they didn't get the meat. In my case they got both and the meat was a special treat and hence, worthy of a village party.

Another part of this tapestry is the Matetsi Safari Area ,which serves the high-end hunting market. I may have an upcoming post on "The Wild" as my thoughts are turning in that direction. SSS, for whom life is a series of canned experiences, can not begin to understand how special a "Truly Wild" place like the Matetsi is in today's world. You either get that, or you don't.

[Beebs52]

Where are all the people who once told me and youknowwho to get a room?

lb13

Perhaps a penthouse suite in this situation.

[littlebeast13]

Where are all the people who once told me and youknowwho to get a room?

lb13

Perhaps a penthouse suite in this situation.

We'll have to get Vandal to write the shower scene...

lb13

[silverscreenselect]

I am really glad that he liked the photos, however what he failed to notice that the photos he admired at thesmokeofafrica.blogspot.com are clearly labeled as taken in the Chobe National Park in Botswana.

Well, if the theory is anything other than the fact that I looked through them rather quickly to get a rough idea of where you'd been, then your theory, like almost everything else you've posted in this thread, is a crock.

One reason they were so tickled to have me there was while they got the money from those hunters-they didn't get the meat. In my case they got both and the meat was a special treat and hence, worthy of a village party.

I hope for your sake Spock that you don't play poker since you'd be pathetically easy to bluff. I'd be willing to bet the villagers give versions of that same speech to every hunter who goes through there and that the "village party" is subsidized by your buddy Russ Broom.

SSS, for whom life is a series of canned experiences, can not begin to understand how special a "Truly Wild" place like the Matetsi is in today's world. You either get that, or you don't.

You know nothing of me or my experiences. You don't have to go to Africa to have a "truly wild" experience. I've been on hiking treks in the north Georgia mountains where I'm reasonably sure I was the only human within five to ten miles (when the trails are blocked by cobwebs in a number of locations, you can tell the area doesn't get much attention). Now your Matetsi area may be more extensive than the Cohutta wilderness, but in my view, spending eight hours hiking (on more than one occasion) without any signs of human activity is wild enough.

And, although most of my hiking was done in this part of the country, before I married, I went on two lengthy crosscountry vacations that involved extensive hiking in wilderness areas. I did see the Grand Canyon and other popular tourist destinations, but I also saw some considerably less well-known natural attractions that had far fewer visitors (in some cases, just me on the day I visited). So I do get that, probably a lot better than you do, because I'm not as caught up in using this experience to justify my manhood as you seem to be.

There are plenty more wild places in the U.S. and the rest of the world than you might imagine since in your view, a place is only wild if you tote a rifle around while you walk or more probably drive through it with several guides to watch your back and keep you company. And the people who actually spend the most time going through those places are the very "photographic" eco-tourists you love to deride, who would undoubtedly love to go through areas like the Matetsi if they were available. They're certainly not as numerous as the throngs who go to Victoria Falls or the Grand Canyon, but there are more of them out there than there are overgrown little boys trying to show off by gunning down a kudu or two.

[BackInTex]

I'm not as caught up in using this experience to justify my manhood .

There you go again. You are the only one here, on either side of any discussion, that uses the phrase "justify ... manhood". I'm thinking there is something to it. Something about you that makes you feel a need to accuse other of doing that, again and again and again.

[BackInTex]

the very "photographic" eco-tourists you love to deride

de·ride : to talk or write about (someone or something) in a very critical or insulting way : to say that (someone or something) is ridiculous or has no value

For the record, Spock has not done this. You are the only one who has done this, in this thread, about a specific group.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm not as caught up in using this experience to justify my manhood .

There you go again. You are the only one here, on either side of any discussion, that uses the phrase "justify ... manhood". I'm thinking there is something to it. Something about you that makes you feel a need to accuse other of doing that, again and again and again.

Well, of course, Spock isn't going to say he's going on the trip to prove his manhood, but all this talk about "great adventures" and the "whiff of Africa" and the thrills he got, real or imagined, when people looked at him in his safari outfit pretty much adds up to the same thing.

I got my "great adventures," none of which involved shooting anything, out of the way years ago (frankly, I'm not in shape to do the type of hiking I could 20 or 30 years ago), but a lot of people haven't, which is how Russ Broom and the others stay in business.

[Spock]

SSS>>>Poaching is a problem in all of Africa, regardless of whether trophy hunting is allowed. However, trophy hunting has led to severe depletion of populations in some areas:<<<<

A complete novice to the field of African Wildlife Conservation does not have the knowledge base to begin a discussion with "Poaching is a problem. However."

He has to understand that he is still at the "Poaching is THE problem" phase of his education.

SSS>>> then your theory, like almost everything else you've posted in this thread, is a crock.<<<

Finally, we can get to some substantive discussion. Let's start with my first conservation analysis dealing with the application of the Field of Island BioGeography to African conservation. How is that a crock? I would appreciate any constructive criticism.

[silverscreenselect]

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.

Well, I brought up your discussion of Island Biogeography, and for the life of me, I can't see anything here (or anything else in my admittedly quick research on the subject of island biogeography) that stands for the proposition that hunting animals whose numbers are threatened is good for the conservation of those animals. I did find a number of mentions that hunting has been a significant cause of the extinction of a number of species, however. Seen any passenger pigeons lately?

[Spock]

Spock's Analysis of the African Conservation Problem #5: (tm)

The Hunting Method

http://antipoaching.zambezedeltasafaris.com/

I posted this link earlier in this thread. However, I decided I wanted to read it into the record, as it were. It succinctly illustrates the application of the "Hunting Method" to the conservation of African wildlife and wildlands. The example is illustrative of the government concession portion of the landscape. It takes place on a Coutada in Mozambique, but stands in for the Safari Areas in Zimbabwe, the Game Reserves in Tanzania-etc.

Pull Quote>>This is a great achievement for an area funded solely through hunting and the sustainable utilisation of wildlife.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Zambeze Delta, once holding one of the highest concentrations of game in Arica per square mile

The wildlife population was decimated in the civil war from the early 70s until 1990 when peace finally won the day. Before the war, the delta was arguably over populated and had in excess of 40 000 buffalo and 70 000 buffalo. When safari hunting was reopened in Mozambique, in 1994, the first game count revealed 1200 buffalo and a small scattering of waterbuck . Worthy of mention, is that in Coutada 11, we only knew of one herd of 44 sable. Today, the delta has over 20 000 buffalo and Coutada 11 over 2000 sable. The wild life numbers have come back incredibly well.

From the tiny Suni all the way up to Buffalo. We now have the highest unfenced sable concentration in Africa today. Hunters on safari continue to be amazed at the incredible diversity and shere numbers of game the delta and specifically Coutada 11 has today. Coutada 11 boasts the highest concentration of wildlife in Mozambique, a higher concentration than any national park. This is a great achievement for an area funded solely through hunting and the sustainable utilisation of wildlife. Unfortunately , our now high wildlife numbers attracts more pressure from the poaching sector, both subsistence and commercial. It stands to reason that success for a poacher comes easier in an area where wildlife is so abundant. We started with a small anti poaching unit of 6 rangers. Today it has grown to a 22 man unit with a full time head ranger. In addition to this we have a quick response unit on dirt bikes that are able to respond fast when poaching presence or poachers themselves are seen by our hunters whilst on safari. In our attempt to stay ahead of the poachers, we now have a unit that operates year round. We would like to include extra dirt bikes, a Polaris Ranger vehicle as well as a dedicated vehicle for the unit as well as further professional training. The funds raised from this fund raising drive will be used 100% for anti poaching and community related issues that benefit the conservation of wildlife in Coutada 11. There will be zero administration fees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Spock]

SSS>>>Well, I brought up your discussion of Island Biogeography, and for the life of me, I can't see anything here (or anything else in my admittedly quick research on the subject of island biogeography) that stands for the proposition that hunting animals whose numbers are threatened is good for the conservation of those animals. I did find a number of mentions that hunting has been a significant cause of the extinction of a number of species, however. Seen any passenger pigeons lately?<<<

I have not seen any passenger pigeons lately, however I have seen lions, elephants and cape buffalo that are still on the landscape in the Matetsi Safari Area, due to the successful application of the "Hunting Method" of conservation. For more background, see my post above.

Re-"Island Biogeography":

I like where you are going with that, however, we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. "Island Biogeography" is where we have to start, it is not where we end. We have to build a base of understanding of the African landscape and the pressures on it-before we can move on.

[Spock]

I was pondering what SSS said about the Field of Island BioGeography. I realized that it would be very easy to get lost in the details of vast number of extinctions chronicled in the field.

Instead, we need to apply the basic principles that Island Biogeography teaches us. The principles of Island Biogeography apply to continental landscapes as development increasingly fragments remaining natural areas into smaller and smaller islands.
1) Bad conservation things happen on islands
2) The smaller the island, the worse things can go south more quickly

Obviously, Island Biogeography applies to the remaining areas of natural habitat across Africa. I would like to take a closer look at the African “Island” that I am most familiar with.

This island consists of Hwange National Park, The Matetsi Safari Area and, what I call, the “Breakfast Farm Complex.” These 3 entities are parts of a larger, fairly intact ecosystem with other public and private landholdings. However, for the sake of illustration, I will consider the 3 named entities as one single island. Simply put, Hwange National Park is a large area located in the southern portion of the study area. Matetsi is located north of Hwange and the “Breakfast Farm Complex” is located east/northeast of the Matetsi Safari Area.

I will more fully describe and analyze the “Breakfast Model” in a future post, but let’s start thinking about some of the things below.

Given what we know of rural Africa, what are some of the tools we have to help protect wildlife and wildlands in the “Breakfast Farm Complex”?

We have to recognize that we operate under real-world conditions. It is a given that a large number of wild animals will be killed by humans in the “Breakfast Farm Complex” every year. There is nothing we can do to change that.

However, is there a way that we can use the deaths of some of these animals to help protect and preserve wildlife habitat in the “Breakfast Farm Complex”? And thus help protect and buffer Matetsi and Hwange-etc?