50 Day Africa Hunt

[japantiger 4,051]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Don't give me the charity BS.  Indiscriminate killing has nothing to do with charity.  All you have done is kill exotic animals, some of which are endangered species.  You are killing purely for some self serving form of pleasure.  Nothing more.

Your net effect is little better than that of a poacher.

A few facts:

The killing is not indiscriminate, it is targeted at post reproductive males.  All the meat is eaten by the hunting camps and local populations.  These actions create employment and dignity for people that would have neither.  It also provides food for school children...ever seen a hungry kid try to concentrate?  So hunting is 100% targeted and built to be sustainable.

Poachers kill animals indiscriminately...the meat is left to rot.  The dollars from poaching funds organized crime syndicates within Africa and mostly within China.  

These animals are not "exotic"; they're quite plentiful.  They are actually parts of growing and healthy populations.  

I''m sorry you find a 25 year career of charitable work in one of the most impoverished places on earth of little value.  You're such a prince.  Fortunately, my experience has been quite different.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Good job avoiding the substance of JT's response to your unreliable source. 

Why unreliable?

I attempted to choose a source that was more even handed rather than something like the WWF.

The bottom line is, this isn't hunting.  This organized killing of exotic animals.  There is little real evidence (in most places) that it has any positive economic or, conservation effects.

But please, if you have any unbiased information you wish to add,,, do it.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Why unreliable?

I attempted to choose a source that was more even handed rather than something like the WWF.

The bottom line is, this isn't hunting.  This organized killing of exotic animals.  There is little real evidence (in most places) that it has any positive economic or, conservation effects.

But please, if you have any unbiased information you wish to add,,, do it.

 

Are you able to refute anything he has said? I cannot. 

JT's expertise surpasses mine by far. I am hard-pressed to add anything. 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Are you able to refute anything he has said? I cannot. 

JT's expertise surpasses mine by far. I am hard-pressed to add anything. 

You're wasting your time, counselor. Ichy is convinced of his rectitude in this matter. 

I'm not much of a hunter, to be honest, but it has been interesting to get JapanTiger's perspective on this, and I've learned something...hasn't been a wasted day.

[japantiger 4,051]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Why unreliable?

I attempted to choose a source that was more even handed rather than something like the WWF.

The bottom line is, this isn't hunting.  This organized killing of exotic animals.  There is little real evidence (in most places) that it has any positive economic or, conservation effects.

But please, if you have any unbiased information you wish to add,,, do it.

 

This is an organization that doesn't even want me to eat bacon. There is nothing even handed about them.  Any organization who's purpose is to ignore the basic biological fact that we are omnivores; and along with that would propose policies that take food out of the mouths of the most vulnerable population on the planet with no replacement, are not people to be taken seriously.  

I provided two well laid out, fully sourced, analysis; with transparent methodology, that refuted every point your article made.  Your article provided 5 accusations with no support that are easily refuted and make assertions counter to the laws of the countries involved.  You obviously made no attempt to read those points or any of the sources documents I provided based on the speed of your response.  

You now fall back to the assertion that this isn't hunting again... in spite of you providing an article that in fact calls it hunting.  You seem to be a bit confused in how to respond   

The African hunting model is identical to the model used for legal, regulated, conservation hunting in the US and other developed countries.   In fact, counter to hunting in the US, foreign entities impose additional restrictions on African hunting.  Game populations in the areas supported by legal regulated conservation hunting are thriving.  The resulting game meat  is consumed by the local population, just like they have been doing for thousands of years.  Hunting also provides the lions share of the funding for the Anti Poaching units that fight the organized crime poaching syndicates across the continent....which is the real threat to sustainable game populations.

I am left with one conclusion.  You haven't made a good faith effort to be educated on the topic.  Your claims are easily falsifiable.   You provided a propaganda document that provides no support for their easily falsifiable claims.  Ignorance on a topic is not a crime.  Willfull ignorance in the face of a large body of contradictory data is.

Edited December 3, 2022 by japantiger

[japantiger 4,051]

These happened daily.  Mock charges are pretty entertaining.  Real charges are frightening! and I don't have any video of those...we had 3 elephant encounters while in hunting blinds that were pretty ... ummm..touch and go.  One in particular...the elephant even bumped the back of our blind.  It was a quite the pucker-factor.  

 

 

 

[AUloggerhead 2,237]

What kind of rifles/ammo are you using on these hunts?  

[japantiger 4,051]

 

I'm shooting a Blaser R8, .375 H&H....with a Swarovski Z8i 2-16x scope. Carbon fiber stock. The rig comes in just under 10 pounds. Barnes VOR-TX 300 Gr softs and solids. I had the barrel ported and recoil is nothing...I shoot it in a t-shirt.

 

[japantiger 4,051]

I also have .300 win mag and 6.5 creedmor barrels for this.  I only carried the .375 this last trip given the mix of dangerous and plains game. 

[AUloggerhead 2,237]

13 hours ago, japantiger said:

I also have .300 win mag and 6.5 creedmor barrels for this.  I only carried the .375 this last trip given the mix of dangerous and plains game. 

OK, thanks.  One other question -- From the pix you posted, there was quite a lot of different animals you hunted.  I could see using the more powerful rounds for the elephants, rhino, etc. but did you use the same for the smaller antelope types?  

[japantiger 4,051]

2 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

OK, thanks.  One other question -- From the pix you posted, there was quite a lot of different animals you hunted.  I could see using the more powerful rounds for the elephants, rhino, etc. but did you use the same for the smaller antelope types?  

Yes, same round on everything.  One example is when I shot the lion; I was actually hunting a warthog to hang up on a leopard bait.  The last thing you want when needing a .375 or more (.375 is the minimum required caliber to hunt dangerous game in Africa) is to have a lesser gun/cartridge.  Bottom line is, I would have had to pass and get a bigger gun.  That would have been tragic.  Carrying only 1 weapon also simplifies logistics and hassles on a hunt; one ammo, etc.   

This is common when hunting dangerous game along with plains game.  Africa is quite different than hunting things in the US.  The Lions follow the buffalo herds, etc....the leopards are going to be where the antelope are, cape buffalo are everywhere, In Africa, the game is everywhere.  In the US, you hope you see an animal.  

[AUloggerhead 2,237]

35 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Yes, same round on everything.  One example is when I shot the lion; I was actually hunting a warthog to hang up on a leopard bait.  The last thing you want when needing a .375 or more (.375 is the minimum required caliber to hunt dangerous game in Africa) is to have a lesser gun/cartridge.  Bottom line is, I would have had to pass and get a bigger gun.  That would have been tragic.  Carrying only 1 weapon also simplifies logistics and hassles on a hunt; one ammo, etc.   

This is common when hunting dangerous game along with plains game.  Africa is quite different than hunting things in the US.  The Lions follow the buffalo herds, etc....the leopards are going to be where the antelope are, cape buffalo are everywhere, In Africa, the game is everywhere.  In the US, you hope you see an animal.  

That makes a lot of sense -- being ready for anything surprising that may come up.  I've never been to Africa, much less on a safari hunt but I have heard stories of cape buffalo sneaking up on hunters(!)  Congrats on your successful hunt & thanks for sharing your adventure.  

Edited December 4, 2022 by AUloggerhead

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

I was actually hunting a warthog to hang up on a leopard bait.

Wow, baiting an endangered species.  How noble.  How skillful.

I hope you watched 60 minutes tonight and saw what a real humanitarian, conservation effort in Africa looks like.

[japantiger 4,051]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Wow, baiting an endangered species.  How noble.  How skillful.

I hope you watched 60 minutes tonight and saw what a real humanitarian, conservation effort in Africa looks like.

 

Leopards in Africa are not endangered (per the USF&W service; see, they gave me a hunting permit and permit to import the leopard I shot) and humans have been baiting and ambushing animals for 2m years; it's one of the reasons our brains are the size they are now...it's a shame some people waste the cranial capacity that only exists because of the impact of meat eating on their brains and digestive anatomy.

[abw0004 10,124]

This isn't something to be proud of.  It is taking advantage of impoverished countries where gangs control the majority of the hunting lands.  Majority of the fees you pay do not go where they say it goes.  One of my clients runs the Global Conservation Corps where their sole focus is to get to these kids before the gangs do so they aren't corrupted.  It boils down to wealthy people preying on poor people to exhaust their few resources until it is gone.

[japantiger 4,051]

7 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

This isn't something to be proud of.  It is taking advantage of impoverished countries where gangs control the majority of the hunting lands.  Majority of the fees you pay do not go where they say it goes.  One of my clients runs the Global Conservation Corps where their sole focus is to get to these kids before the gangs do so they aren't corrupted.  It boils down to wealthy people preying on poor people to exhaust their few resources until it is gone.

Facts please...interesting that when googling for "gangs and hunting in Africa" several different ways the only returns are related to African poaching gangs and the illegal ivory trade...what I referenced above.  And by interesting I mean not surprising at all.  

There are generally two land ownership models for hunting. 

1) Private land conservancies;  which is where the majority of the hunting land is now in South Africa and Namibia for example.  These run anywhere from 80k to over 500k acres.  The lands are generally owned by families (large farms) and the animal populations are managed to ensure growing and vital animal populations.  It's just common sense....the animals have an economic value so the owners manage their resources effectively.  Hunting regulations on these lands follow the laws of the country (quota's, licenses, etc); which are very similar across the major hunting countries...APU's operate with the approval and support of the land owners and Game Wardens are present on all hunts. 

2) Government land conservancies and tribal conservancies that are leased to private interests who manage the land and game populations on behalf of the government/tribes.  For example, in the Selous Game reserve in Tanzania or in the Caprivi Strip in NE Namibia Outfitters lease hunting sections (just like they do in Alaska in the Woods-Tikchick State Park by the way), build temporary hunting camps (no permanent settlements allowed) and run hunts out of these camps.  Hunting Quotas, regulations, etc., are part of the lease the Hunting Outfitters bid on.  Requirements for the amount of Turnover required to be put back into the local communities are also specified (a % of net turnover).   APU's and Game Wardens are active and present in each hunt.  

Thanks for the opportunity to allow me to refute your unsupported accusation and provide more detail on how hunting works across not only Africa but the developed world.  

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

Ichy. You said:  I know all about hunting.  What you are doing is not hunting.

14 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Wow, baiting an endangered species.  How noble.  How skillful.

 

11 hours ago, japantiger said:

humans have been baiting and ambushing animals for 2m years

@icanthearyou, evidently you don’t know all about hunting.

[AUloggerhead 2,237]

2 hours ago, abw0004 said:

This isn't something to be proud of.  It is taking advantage of impoverished countries where gangs control the majority of the hunting lands.  Majority of the fees you pay do not go where they say it goes.  One of my clients runs the Global Conservation Corps where their sole focus is to get to these kids before the gangs do so they aren't corrupted.  It boils down to wealthy people preying on poor people to exhaust their few resources until it is gone.

Interesting take.  I went to the Global Conservation Corps website, and their overall goal is conservation -- through combatting poaching.  Due to poverty & high unemployment, the local population often sees poaching as a way to provide for their family to keep from starving.  It takes money & resources to train/equip rangers.  Where do you think those funds come from?  Legal hunters.

It may be paradoxical to think legal hunting contributes to conservation, but that's the way it works in the US as well.  Orgs like Ducks Unlimited were founded by hunters.  

[abw0004 10,124]

2 hours ago, japantiger said:

Facts please...interesting that when googling for "gangs and hunting in Africa" several different ways the only returns are related to African poaching gangs and the illegal ivory trade...what I referenced above.  And by interesting I mean not surprising at all.  

There are generally two land ownership models for hunting. 

1) Private land conservancies;  which is where the majority of the hunting land is now in South Africa and Namibia for example.  These run anywhere from 80k to over 500k acres.  The lands are generally owned by families (large farms) and the animal populations are managed to ensure growing and vital animal populations.  It's just common sense....the animals have an economic value so the owners manage their resources effectively.  Hunting regulations on these lands follow the laws of the country (quota's, licenses, etc); which are very similar across the major hunting countries...APU's operate with the approval and support of the land owners and Game Wardens are present on all hunts. 

2) Government land conservancies and tribal conservancies that are leased to private interests who manage the land and game populations on behalf of the government/tribes.  For example, in the Selous Game reserve in Tanzania or in the Caprivi Strip in NE Namibia Outfitters lease hunting sections (just like they do in Alaska in the Woods-Tikchick State Park by the way), build temporary hunting camps (no permanent settlements allowed) and run hunts out of these camps.  Hunting Quotas, regulations, etc., are part of the lease the Hunting Outfitters bid on.  Requirements for the amount of Turnover required to be put back into the local communities are also specified (a % of net turnover).   APU's and Game Wardens are active and present in each hunt.  

Thanks for the opportunity to allow me to refute your unsupported accusation and provide more detail on how hunting works across not only Africa but the developed world.  

No problem at all.  Now before I begin, let me preface this by saying I am not against hunting for food.  Everyone in my family hunts and I have no problem with that.  I am a conservationist, but am also pragmatic.  In some cases, culling is needed.  In this case, it is not needed.

The first item I would like to discuss is how this is helping the populations.  You did bring up earlier how you go after males, which in theory can work, but not all species, especially lions.  In the case of African lions, approximately 600 lions are killed every year on trophy hunts, including lions in populations that are already declining from other threats.  When an adult male lion is killed, the destabilization of that lion’s pride can lead to more lion deaths as outside males compete to take over the pride.  The source from this is National Geographic.  Only 25,000 rhinos remain on this planet as well as 20,000 lions.  Those numbers are extraordinarily low.

Regarding monetary gain, I will use a quote from Dr. Naomi Rose taken from a HSUS blog: "Regarding the statement that trophy hunters do a lot for conservation, it’s true that some portion of some hunters’ fees goes to conservation in some countries, but it’s rarely the major source of conservation funding. Usually middlemen—commercial outfitters—take the lion’s share of sport hunting proceeds and local communities and conservation and management agencies get the dregs.”  To further the point a study on the economic benefit behind lion hunting in Africa concluded that the suggestion that trophy hunting plays a significant role in African economic development is misguided.  Revenues constitute only a fraction of a percent of GDP (3%) and almost none of that ever reaches rural communities.

Here are a few infographics I found helpful as well:

 

  

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by abw0004

[abw0004 10,124]

9 minutes ago, AUloggerhead said:

Interesting take.  I went to the Global Conservation Corps website, and their overall goal is conservation -- through combatting poaching.  Due to poverty & high unemployment, the local population often sees poaching as a way to provide for their family to keep from starving.  It takes money & resources to train/equip rangers.  Where do you think those funds come from?  Legal hunters.

It may be paradoxical to think legal hunting contributes to conservation, but that's the way it works in the US as well.  Orgs like Ducks Unlimited were founded by hunters.  

Global Conservation Corps actually gets their funding through eco-tourism, not hunters.  Their job is to show young africans growing up that eco-tourism is actually more sustainable and lucrative than big game hunting.  39 times more lucrative in fact.  For example, the fee to hunt an elephant is $40-45,000.  That same one elephant could bring in $1,600,000 over its lifetime through safaris.  That is the funding and mission of GCC.

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

8 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

For example, the fee to hunt an elephant is $40-45,000.  That same one elephant could bring in $1,600,000 over its lifetime through safaris. 

Can you break down this fuzzy math for us?  Are you saying; because there is one less elephant to view on a safari it could cost the safari companies $1.6 mill?

[abw0004 10,124]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Can you break down this fuzzy math for us?  Are you saying; because there is one less elephant to view on a safari it could cost the safari companies $1.6 mill?

Oh no.  What I mean, is you can take one elephant.  You can either receive $45,000 once (because after that the elephant is dead), or be a staple in reoccurring safaris that cost up to $1,500 per night.  African Elephants live up to 70 years.  That is where you see the money add up.  30 days of safaris is your breakeven point for that elephant assuming only one person per safari (usually 10 - 12 guests per safari).

Edited December 5, 2022 by abw0004

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

2 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

Oh no.  What I mean, is you can take one elephant.  You can either receive $45,000 once (because after that the elephant is dead), or be a staple in reoccurring safaris that cost up to $1,500 per night.  African Elephants live up to 70 years.  That is where you see the money add up.  30 days of safaris is your breakeven point for that elephant. 

I really don’t think thinning the herd will diminish safaris.  I would guess the hunting permit are for older or troublesome elephants, but @japantiger can chime in on this.

[abw0004 10,124]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I really don’t think thinning the herd will diminish safaris.  I would guess the hunting permit are for older or troublesome elephants, but @japantiger can chime in on this.

I did make a further edit just in case I did not submit it in time before you read it.  I see your quote of me did not include it.  The issue is there are only 45,000 African elephants left in the wild.  That may sound like a lot, but it isn't on the grand scheme of things.  They are also labeled as "critically endangered."  You should not be hunting critically endangered animals.

I can already tell you what pro-trophy hunters responses will be is that they only hunt old or injured animals of the group.  If you want the biggest trophy though with the best rack, it isn't the old one you will go after though.  If you look at pictures of their hunts it isn't the old either.  You can simply let your eyes answer it for you.  You can even see in his photos those are not the old animals.  The only exception may be the Lion, however, like I stated above, if you remove the male, that pride he was a part of will fall apart.  This was an issue when Cecil the lion was illegally poached a few years ago (I am NOT accusing Japan of poaching).

[japantiger 4,051]

1 hour ago, abw0004 said:

I did make a further edit just in case I did not submit it in time before you read it.  I see your quote of me did not include it.  The issue is there are only 45,000 African elephants left in the wild.  That may sound like a lot, but it isn't on the grand scheme of things.  They are also labeled as "critically endangered."  You should not be hunting critically endangered animals.

I can already tell you what pro-trophy hunters responses will be is that they only hunt old or injured animals of the group.  If you want the biggest trophy though with the best rack, it isn't the old one you will go after though.  If you look at pictures of their hunts it isn't the old either.  You can simply let your eyes answer it for you.  You can even see in his photos those are not the old animals.  The only exception may be the Lion, however, like I stated above, if you remove the male, that pride he was a part of will fall apart.  This was an issue when Cecil the lion was illegally poached a few years ago (I am NOT accusing Japan of poaching).

There are over 400,000 African elephants....What you are actually referencing is there are approx 45,000 Asian elephants.  In the hunting states, Elephant populations are growing.  As I have cited specific country examples above from SA and Namibia.  Botswana ended their ban on Elephant hunting 2 years ago as well...the Okavango delta was being overrun by elephants and they were destroying all the other habitat.    Very specifically, elephant populations in Namibia are growing 8-10% per year; with resulting harvests in the .3% range.  For example, Namibia hasn't changed their quotas (90 for the country) in nearly 20 years.  

As for what animals hunters "go for"....I can cite the law and my own personal experience that refutes your assertion...the elephant I shot was estimated at 58 years old...ancient for an elephant in the wild.  The lion 7; the average lifespan for a wild male lion.  The buffalo was over 10, etc...I have shot two that were over 13.

Ah, Cecil...I'm so glad you brought Cecil up.  Cecil was not "illegally poached".  Cecil was an old bachelor lion (aged 13); not a breeding lion;  perfect candidate for hunting.  He had been cast out of the pride and was living outside the game park on hunting land.  Like all old bachelor lions he was suffering from malnutrition and wouldn't have lasted much longer either just thru starvation or being killed by other game (likely hyena's).  When he was "autopsied", all he had in his stomach was some porcupine quills.  He was legally hunted and wounded by the hunter...in this case, a bow hunter.  The hunter then hunted Cecil for 2 days (I think it was 2) which is what you should do...if you wound an animal it is incumbent on you to follow up.  

I personally wouldn't use a bow on dangerous game; but it's legal in some countries just not my cup of tea.

Edited December 5, 2022 by japantiger