Hank's Voice

Sizable Portions – Who's Really Eating Away at African Conservation Efforts?

Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:13:18 GMT

On 25 January 2024, the Belgian Parliament voted to prohibit the importation of legally obtained hunting trophies from threatened and endangered species, claiming some of them could be further imperiled unless trade is limited.

They, along with Humane Society International (HSI) and other anti-hunting/anti-sustainable use/animal rights organizations, hailed this decision as a monumental triumph for wildlife conservation and animal welfare.

The executive director of HSI/Europe even bragged, "With this decision, Belgium positions itself as a leader in protecting biodiversity and endangered species." Bravely marching on to "save" wildlife, they will try coercing France next, and other European Union (EU) countries, ultimately, to adopt similar bans.

But before they claim that the LEGALLY hunted, highly regulated, INEDIBLE "trophy" parts of wildlife are the problem, they should gain firmer control over the ILLEGALLY and indiscriminately obtained and trafficked EDIBLE parts of wildlife entering their countries daily, in concerning quantities.

Not by much-maligned "trophy" hunters but by other residents of their lands, who are engaging in or supporting bushmeat poaching activities, often knowingly and on a commercial scale, with seemingly no regard for its adverse effects on conservation.

The EU prohibits the importation of any meat and meat products unless they are specifically authorized, certified for commercial consignments, and presented with correct documents.

Important reasons for this include potential disease transmission to humans and animals (both wild and domestic) and potentially threatening the continued existence of wild species or populations by their UNREGULATED take for bushmeat purposes.

These restrictions are not new.

Yet what persists and is thought to be growing in the EU, particularly in Belgium and France? A thriving, organized, luxury bushmeat market. And what is a major threat to wildlife globally, particularly in the tropics, specifically in Western and Central Africa, regions of incredible biodiversity?

The poaching of wildlife for bushmeat.

Although it is unfortunately not as well-documented as it should be, there is a growing body of scientific papers reporting that alarmingly large quantities of bushmeat are being illegally brought into the EU via airplane passengers, cargo shipments, and the postal system.

And not just for personal consumption; it also supplies clandestine markets and restaurants in big cities, such as Paris and Brussels. Bushmeat is often sold there at the top range of prices of premium domestic livestock and legally obtained wild game.

And CITES-listed species (threatened or endangered) are amongst those sold and consumed, with many species mislabeled.

Yet expat urban elites consider bushmeat a delicacy and a way of retaining cultural ties to their homelands.

Efforts to document and estimate the extent of the bushmeat problem began in 2006, when Justin Brashares of the University of California at Berkeley recruited volunteers (expats from Western African countries) to visit illegal markets in Paris, Brussels, London, New York, Montreal, Toronto and Chicago, resulting in evidence of greater than 6000 kg (13,227 lbs) of bushmeat moving through these seven markets each month.

A 2008 study by Chaber et al., estimated that 5000 kg (11,023 lbs) of bushmeat each week were illegally transported in personal baggage through Paris's Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport, contributing to a whopping 273,000 kg (601,862 lbs) annually, on Air France carriers alone.

Assuming the detected rates were truly representative, as they could actually be higher. Seven percent of passengers searched were carrying bushmeat in quantities of 20 kg (44 lbs) on average, ranging up to 51kg (112 lbs).

The most recent data comes from Belgium, in a 2017 – 2018 study by Gombeer et al . The very first of its kind on the clandestine bushmeat markets in Brussels.

Travelers responding to a survey and vendors, upon questioning, indicated that they knew bushmeat was illegal and why. Yet they were willing to risk transporting and selling it to stay connected to their countries of origin, to enjoy preferred food items, and to benefit financially.

Some even earned enough to pay their travel expenses, which are typically significant. Some Brussels vendors admitted having stores and customers in other Belgian cities and providing phone numbers to their customers to check on when the next shipment would arrive. The average interval was one to two weeks, and prices ranged from 31 – 62 euros/kg (15 - 30 USD/lb).

Trafficked bushmeat was typically smoked, dehydrated, or in pieces difficult to discern its species origin from visual inspection alone. Vendors typically claimed samples bought at markets to originate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Because morphological identification of 15 purchased pieces was impossible, DNA barcoding of mitochondrial markers was used to attempt identification.

Seven of the 15 pieces couldn't be identified to species level. Eight (including three monkey samples) did not correspond to the vernacular name given by vendors.

Three belonged to a different family than the vendors claimed. Three were inaccurately labeled species at the genus level. AND…. four were from CITES-LISTED species: red-tailed monkey, De Brazza's monkey and blue duiker.

Two others simply identified to the duiker level, with no distinction possible between species. Important inadequacy since some duiker species are listed or data deficient.

It is important to note that such challenges with identifying species do not occur with hunting trophy imports, as they are more wholly discernable, readily identifiable parts of which there is much knowledge, as the regulated trade has been legal and highly monitored for a long time.

All bushmeat in these European markets is illegal at the national, EU, and international levels.

So, we do not fully comprehend the actual scope of the problems it creates within and between multiple continents and countries.

But we DO know that the illegal bushmeat trade is absolutely a KNOWN major contributor to the overexploitation of vulnerable and protected species in Western and Central Africa.

Species struggling to exist in, and often endemic to, some of the world's most biodiverse regions. The take of these animals is indiscriminate, as the goal is to obtain meat.

All ages and both sexes are made of meat. No need to be selective. With no regulations, there is no accountability. And there are no incentives to use these resources sustainably.

These areas are hammered by habitat loss due to deforestation and land conversion, terrorism, and exploding human populations.

Their big predators are rapidly disappearing or have already extirpated due to the loss of their prey base and increased human-wildlife conflict.

The bushmeat trade is bad enough in its countries of origin, negatively impacting wildlife populations and the ecosystem services they can provide.

But in many cases, especially in countries that offer no legal hunting, it is sadly one of the few options for local human populations to obtain meat.

The international bushmeat market, for personal consumption or sale in EU countries' luxury markets or restaurants, is infinitely more inexcusable and should not be tolerated.

Yet what does Belgium and HSI purport to be a threat to biodiversity and animal welfare instead? Belgian hunters LEGALLY imported the undeniably relatively paltry purported 308 trophy parts between 2014 and 2018.

It is critical to note that this number may not even represent 308 individual animals, as trophy imports are often counted as separate parts of particular animals, i.e., an antelope's skull equals one trophy, plus its skin equals two trophies.

It is also essential to note that a country exhibiting more honest concerns about conservation (the USA) has developed a permitting system for listed species that requires either non-detriment or enhancement findings to import these hunting trophies.

And this information is indeed available and presented by hunting operators regularly.

Inedible animal parts obtained via legal hunting have been proven to be a proper conservation tool in a myriad of ways, globally, that can sustainably provide valuable food resources, legally, for residents, yet the push continues to ban them.

That's anti-conservation.

It's a true shame that Belgian politicians mistakenly thought HSI's cause du jour was of substance. France, however, is a country well-known for its discerning cuisine, so hopefully, when it comes to conservation matters, it will thoroughly scrutinize what the misguided misinformation campaigns to ban trophy hunting imports are attempting to serve on its plates.

Allowing bushmeat to continue to illegally enter the EU whilst proclaiming legal trophy hunting imports are the real threat to biodiversity, should not be on anyone's menus.

It is fare that is unfair to all those who truly do care about nature's future and its connections with humanity too.

Vex and the Country Essay #1 — Writing About Not (Or For Naught)

Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:05:35 GMT

Recently, in a conversation with a friend, I expressed my sincere

disappointment in not feeling like writing anymore, hoping to find some

magical inspiration. Her response was – why not write about why you

haven’t been writing? An excellent suggestion!

Reading and writing have always been important in my life, both

personally and professionally. As a biologist who is keenly passionate

about conservation, I invest lots of time into researching and compiling

factual information and varying viewpoints on complex, often

controversial issues. I try to present them in thoughtful, accurate

manners that are interesting to read. These topics are typically not

difficult to understand when presented as such, but usually they are

quite challenging to condense.

But, frustratingly enough, except for a small core of dedicated friends

(whose support I truly appreciate) who often read my articles, what are

the typical responses? Scrolling on by in favor of viewing mindless, brief

content instead. Complaining anything over a few hundred words is too

long. Telling me I’m wasting my time preaching to the converted.

With the absolute most aggravating being – people who do read and

completely dismiss it all, feeling their opinions, based upon ignorance,

are worth more than any knowledge and facts I’ve assembled and

presented. Choosing instead to embrace overdramatization and

misinformation presented in crowd-stirring ways, that rouse the rabble

of all keyboard rebels who are instant “experts” on the subject,

claiming to “save” wildlife, via one damaging falsehood after another.

The resulting online hoopla quickly rots into a festering, toxic brew of

horribly ugly and potentially quite damaging proportions. An

intolerable display of intolerance and manufactured hatred. Poisonous

situations to protect yourself from.

So why bother trying to write factual yet heartfelt pieces? It ends up

feeling like when you need to scream in a dream, but the sound just

isn’t coming out. Mental constipation settles in. A backup of the flow

of the prose. A feeling that you’re just so tired of everyone else’s -

well, you know what – that you don’t even feel like expressing your

own pent up thoughts anymore. A desire to just quit and let those

seemingly hellbent on ruining everything get on with finally doing it.

But a writer’s gotta write, even if only for themselves. Even if there’s

only a shimmer of a glimmer of hope that someone else might want to

read it and relate to it. Especially when the topics are critical to the

well-being of that writer’s heart and soul.

About the time my friend suggested this topic to me, I found myself

distracted in the mindless scrolling on social media that I so

hypocritically dislike. Short video clips from the TV series Sex and the

City began catching my attention. I’m not a city person at all. Yet what

was it about that show that appealed to me?

Its characters represented a sampling of people in a certain

environment (one quite foreign to me) openly discussing topics that

many people likely ponder but are uncomfortable voicing. Most

viewers could relate to at least some parts of the characters’

viewpoints or challenges, including many they might not have

previously considered, as their own lives may have been vastly

different. Same but different, though, as there are universal threads

that unite all of us in certain ways. And each episode had the main

character, Carrie, ultimately writing thought-provoking essays in

personable ways that made you want to stop and think a bit, for better

or for worse.

In stark contrast, the city is not my habitat at all. I live, work, and

recreate in rural areas, and I travel to remote wildlands around the

globe. My focus in all of these activities is always on nature. And how

we, as humans, impact it. As well as how it affects us. And when I’m

alone with my thoughts, trying to figure out how to share these

important issues in essays that might just maybe encourage others to

think more deeply and act more appropriately about them, I often end

up frustrated and daunted.

How could people who have little to no experience outdoors, beyond

cities, or amongst wildlife, feel justified in dictating what can or cannot

occur in the lives of those of us who do? And continually dispute,

contest, and agitate us in problematic ways that honestly hurt

conservation instead of helping it?

Hence the creation now of my new blog series, titled Vex and the

Country. To vex someone is to annoy, puzzle or frustrate them. To be

problematic or contentious, difficult or much debated. Sometimes in

trivial ways. I’m often vexed, in the country, by people, who are often

(but not always) in the city, and their non-factual opinions nowadays on

topics that can be inherently vexing anyway.

I hope you’ll enjoy reading my candid essays in this new series. But I

hope more so that they’ll generate honestly deeper thought about the

topics presented, greater discussion amongst all of us, a desire to seek

the truth and reject the falsehoods, and an appreciation for

acknowledging that the world of both humans and nature is a complex,

diverse place with many far-reaching connections.

Conventional Wisdom

Fri, 05 Jan 2024 15:08:31 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

January 2020. My pickup truck headlights illuminated a mostly solid blanket of

fresh snow, highway lines only partially visible in the wind-scoured areas between

the drifts. At 2:30AM, most North Dakotans were sleeping. Yet there I was, four

wheel drive mandatorily engaged, post blizzard, enroute to the airport to my first

ever Dallas Safari Club (DSC) Convention.

Uncertain of what to expect, yet excited about the prospects, I was pleased that

everyone I met on my journey, from TSA agents to airline employees to fellow

travelers remarked that such an event sounded very interesting, fun and

informative. Many of those people were non-hunters.

And their predictions were very correct! In less than 96 hours, I visited with

hunters from 19 countries, learned more about their hunting cultures and

conservation efforts, made many new friends and met lots of folks face to face

whom I only previously knew online. And I was further inspired to travel, hunt,

write, photograph and more deeply and directly participate in and advocate for

the conservation through hunting model that has worked so admirably around

the globe.

Each convention day, a grand figurative river of hunters of all ages ebbed and

flowed through the exhibits, banquets, seminars, auctions and award ceremonies.

All connected by our shared passion for the pursuit. And for wildlife, wildlands

and all the people interconnected with nature in the landscapes we treasure.

The 2020 Convention theme of Heritage was prevalent in multi-generational

outfitters, family traditions afield, heirloom firearms, well-bred hunting dogs, art

collections, taxidermy displays, legendary books, and so much more. Each

attendee also became part of hunting’s heritage that weekend, as extensions of

the theme prevailed on into all the future plans and partnerships we forged or

reinforced there, and the memories we both recounted and looked forward to

creating.

But at the end of each inspiring, interactive day, three burning questions

remained. Firstly, why do the anti-hunters and animal rights activists never hold

conventions? Secondly, if they did, what would their conventions be like? And,

lastly, what will be their heritage?

Pertinent questions since the 2021 DSC Convention theme was Reflections.

Reflecting psychologically means to fix your thoughts on something in careful

consideration. It usually involves self-examination, self-modification, or even self-

replication. Reflecting on the past can help you to be more present and to even

strive for a better future. As a hunting community, we have many positive

achievements and memorable moments afield to reflect upon, as well as many

critical projects and issues to continue to work on.

But what can be said of the anti-hunting community that actively campaigns to

eliminate us?

If they did hold a convention, I think Deflections would be a very appropriate

theme instead. To deflect is to avert from a true course, to intensely focus upon

and antagonize the legitimacy of the actions, feelings and beliefs of others,

usually with the intent to make yourself look as good as possible and others bad

on purpose. Deflecting is a common tactic that anti-hunters employ in media and

social media “debates”, in their persecution and harassment of legal hunters, and

in conservation-related conversations. Their deflecting, based largely upon their

mob mentality hatred of what they think hunting is and whom they think hunters

are, can very tragically result in deflection of genuine wildlife conservation efforts

via bans, suspensions, misguided manipulations of public sentiment, ballot box

biology, and wasteful legal battles.

How horribly ironic that these people who claim to love animals cannot see that

their actions can cause irreparable harm to wildlife and their required habitats the

world over.

So what might one see, wandering around the floor of their Deflections themed

convention?

Hunting requires firsthand participation in nature, being A PART of it, with travel

often necessary. But the deflectors can operate APART from nature, and “travel”

globally online, so no need for them to attend conventions to plan on visiting

wildlands, or to interact firsthand with any people. Appropriate since many of

openly show their hatred for fellow humans. There would be no need, either, for

any outfitters or land companies to secure booth space. Deflectors are more

interested in persecuting hunters than conserving habitat, so why bother with

securing any land or supporting outfitters who own and/or manage land in any

capacity?

Similarly, since most deflectors gain their inaccurate “knowledge” of nature from

manipulative click bait internet links, celebrity rants, and biased documentaries,

there would be no need for any guides or experienced professionals to exhibit at

their conventions. Nor would there be any need for outdoor clothing

manufacturers to offer products designed to withstand the worst that the

elements can dish out. Simple loungewear suffices for endless hours of keyboard

warrior duties. No hands-on exhibits for kids to learn about nature would be

there, because of course it would likely violate an animals “rights” to have people

gain more appreciation for them by touching their antlers, horns, skins, etc., even

when they are no longer alive. No firearms, bows, crossbows and knives would

be on display, because scathing, hateful remarks are the deflectors’ weapons of

choice (ironically, causing self-inflicted wounds more often than not). State and

federal fish and wildlife agency representatives needn’t exhibit there either

because most deflectors never contribute even to their nongame programs, don’t

even care how such organizations operate, and only offer ignorant criticism. And

besides, creating and filing incorrect, fearmongering, apocalyptic petitions can

readily be accomplished without speaking to those directly involved in wildlife

regulations. Some artists might be present, but the best wildlife artists know their

subjects rather intimately, from spending time afield with them. Many top

wildlife artists not only recognize the importance of conservation through hunting

but also are hunters themselves and/or contribute a portion of their profits to

pro-hunting and legitimate conservation organizations and efforts, so they would

not be welcome at the deflectors’ convention.

Seminars offered might cover such topics as how to troll accounts on social

media, how to incessantly copy and paste propaganda, misidentification of truly

endangered species, how to crusade via inaccurate petitions, how to twist and

warp facts to suit your own agenda, how to project your own shortcomings onto

others, how to insist that killing people is preferable to killing any animals, and

how your own opinion and lifestyle is the only one that matters globally and of

course has zero impact on nature.

The awards banquets might feature trophies – whoops! Probably can’t use that

word! – for most death wishes issued to hunters in a year, most cuss words or

unsavory names used on one social media comment thread, number of genuine

conservation efforts thwarted, highest amount of dollars any “iconic” cash cow

they latch onto has raised in donations for the year, most biologically inaccurate

statements made on social media, and number of self-serving lawsuits filed

profitably. One category that would never receive any worthy nominations is

most actions that contribute positively to conservation. For the umpteenth year

in a row, there would be no qualified applicants.

Hatred, deflection, ignorance, lack of meaningful contributions, and no direct

commitments to wildlife and wildlands, upon reflection, don’t seem to have much

to build an argument on let alone a convention around, now do they? Nor does

this approach have any heritage to be proud of. Unless one thinks persecution,

dismissal and denial has any possible way of ensuring that nature has a

sustainable future in an increasingly more challenged world. Or that these are

values and tactics that anyone should adopt and hand down to future

generations.

Four years later, as I now prepare to once again attend the DSC Convention, I

have no doubt the many merits and utilities of hunting will be displayed,

demonstrated and discussed there. The deflectors, who are not stakeholders in

conservation, will criticize from their armchairs. Rallying the unknowing, emotive

masses to instead rip out the stakes that the conservation through hunting model

has firmly planted. They will proclaim that stopping legal, regulated hunting will

“save” the animals. Such a claim is false. Truthful conventional wisdom, and

wisdom gained from conventions, is that the conservation through hunting model

has been and continues to be very effective, whilst that of the anti-hunting

zealots continues to detract, divert, deflect, and damage nature instead.

Clarity

Fri, 02 Dec 2022 16:06:57 GMT

Africa faces many conservation challenges, all requiring honesty and pragmatism to solve. A completely unjustified, shamefully damaging, and wastefully distracting challenge, however, is disinformation campaigns, like the one some members of the UK Parliament are currently engaging in via the proposed Private Members’ Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill.

On 25 November 2022, this Private Members’ Bill was read a second time, viewable in its entirety via this link, between the 10:49:37 and 13:20:45 marks.

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3ae6c148-5fa1-4a9e-89c7-1c82898fbed9

Most MPs who participated repeatedly said, “Let us be clear”, whilst making accusations that were untrue. A full treatise on all the disinformation they presented would be daunting in length. Since clarity is critical in conservation, however, here are at least a few points that everyone should be clear on.

Canned shooting, wherein animals are shot within or immediately upon release from cages, sometimes while drugged, is illegal and is NOT standard, acceptable hunting industry practice in any African country. It is widely denounced and considered unjustifiable. Insisting on misleading people into thinking this is how legal hunting operates is deceitful.

Banging on about the captive bred lion industry is irrelevant, as MPs even stated that it excludes wild lions. Years ago many hunting organizations denounced it, the USA banned importation of these lions, and it is not representative of how lions are hunted throughout Africa. Interestingly, though, both photo and general tourism also fuel the captive bred lion industry via cub petting, walking with lions, and drive through safari attractions. And one of the major supporters of this bill, the Born Free Foundation, exploits captive bred big cats who were neither born nor will ever live free, but are convenient “cash cows” that garner donations from emotionally triggered donors.

High fences are not universal nor unique to hunting areas, as many photo tourist destinations (including some national parks) are also fenced. Although ideally all wildlife would not be restricted by fences, realities of various challenges in some parts of Africa dictate that fencing is the most effective way of achieving conservation in certain situations.

Historical wildlife estimates, wherein certain species are claimed to have existed in numbers far exceeding those nowadays are imprecise and from eras not directly comparable. Reliable wildlife surveys were not conducted then, human populations were lower, and more habitat was available. Currently we can only have as many of any species as we have habitat for. Most habitat remaining in Africa is protected via hunting tourism. Largely in areas that photo tourism cannot fully support and would degrade as it is a model requiring more tourists and infrastructure. Campaigning to disincentivize hunting tourism, therefore, exacerbates a top threat to Africa’s wildlife – habitat loss.

Historical declines were not due to regulated trophy hunting. Unregulated hunting, poaching, habitat loss and persecution were the causes, with colonialists, non-residents AND indigenous peoples to blame. Although MPs applauded various zoos for their captive breeding and reintroduction efforts of some highly imperiled or extirpated species, they conveniently failed to mention that many hunter-supported efforts have done similarly.

Indiscriminate, unregulated and illegal killings are also the primary cause of gene pool effects (like tuskless elephants), and the inbreeding and vulnerability to disease (like lions). Infanticide, which was mentioned, is a natural adaptive behavior where, interestingly enough, the highest rate ever recorded in any mammalian carnivore species was in leopards at a private photo tourism reserve where no hunting occurs.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347213003412

True trophy hunting is age-, not size-based, therefore allowing time for individuals to contribute genetically, if the opportunity to do so exists, as not all males breed in any population. And even those that do typically have very short tenure. Females contribute to the gene pool as well, of course, and are largely protected in trophy hunting programs. Trophy size is a function of age, diet, climatic conditions, competition, and other factors, not just simply genetics. And excessive size of any attribute is not always a survival advantage.

Poaching is not the same as legal hunting. Even though this bill specifically states that, some MPs continue to conflate the two, and even slander legal hunting operators by claiming that they are simply a cover for the illegal wildlife trade, falsifying documents. Sir Roger Gale even purports that a blind eye is turned to poaching where trophy hunting occurs. Blatant disrespect considering he has never personally participated in nor funded any anti-poaching efforts and doesn’t even know what is legal and what is not.

Kenya’s banning of hunting in the 1970s is not a conservation success story. It was purely a political move which resulted in the subsequent loss of over 70% of the country’s wildlife, primarily due to land conversion and poaching. Kenya’s wildlife populations are now greatly limited by lack of habitat. Given adequate resources, elephant and lion populations can rapidly increase (even double) in short time spans (i.e. as brief as ten years). It’s been 45 and 49 years, respectively, since lions and elephants have been legally trophy hunted in Kenya, and yet their numbers have only feebly increased. What has maintained at consistently impressive levels, however, is numbers of animals poached, killed or injured in conflict with humans, orphaned, or dying from drought effects, exacerbated by the loss, degradation and desertification of habitat. And dependence on donors instead of self-funded conservation models. Yet campaigners for this bill implore that others should follow in Kenya’s footsteps.

The ban on hunting imposed by Botswana’s former president, Ian Khama, was not a conservation success either. It, too, was purely political. Photo tourism proponents didn’t follow through with their promises for prosperity, creating many hardships for citizens of a country that only has limited areas suitable for photo tourism. An excellent film on this subject, produced by The Conservation Imperative, a respected group of dedicated, qualified professionals with decades of firsthand experience in Africa, can be accessed in the following link. The Botswana ban was not even a full one, as hunting on private lands was excluded. Yet it still caused significant damage by partially eliminating an effective conservation tool. Bans on trophy hunting and related imports can’t “save the animals” because, quite simply, they do not address conservation’s true challenges. They instead add to them.

https://youtu.be/rY1YHy7_veA

One MP stated that it’s, “always interesting what you find when you follow the money”, suggesting that it’s somehow shocking that pro-hunting and pro-gun organizations would be lobbying against this bill. What should seem questionable and concerning instead is why people who have nothing to do with wildlife, Africa, conservation and communities would be lobbying FOR such a bill? Especially ones who have been working on it for at least three years now and are still basing their arguments upon untruths.

Following the money can indeed be interesting. Therefore, ALL revenue derived from wildlife should be tracked and scrutinized. MPs supporting this bill presented financial figures from studies on hunting tourism that were misleading, inaccurate, and have been debunked and/or not put into proper context. Dismissing, instead, real figures presented that were obtained from knowledgeable wildlife professionals and community leaders in Africa. And, conveniently, no mention was made of what percentage of revenue from anti-hunting campaigns, photo tourism and various NGOs exploiting nature goes directly to conservation and communities. Yet pro-hunting organizations were described as masquerading as charities in Africa that we should, “have no naivety about whatsoever “. Transparency should apply to all.

Some MPs supporting this bill stated that it is not just about imports. It’s about “dealing a significant blow to industries and organizations which thrive and profit off of trophy hunting”. Clearly, they haven’t thought that through. It would be financially suicidal if they succeeded, as their campaigns are wholly dependent on using the continued existence of trophy hunting and related imports as emotionally charged, highly valuable scapegoats that they can easily manipulate the unknowing to rally against.

One MP implored that, “we should make conservation worthwhile to all stakeholders”. Absolutely. The first step to increasing its value should be to eliminate those who mistakenly think they are legitimate stakeholders, such as those who campaign for bills like this. They are only holding nature hostage and hindering conservation by creating more problems via disinformation campaigns. Let us be clear – mud-slinging has no place in the conservation arena, especially from hands never dirty from actually, effectively tackling and funding the true challenges that African countries, their citizens and their wildlife faces.

Africa needs additions to trophy hunting, not alternatives. Currently, even combining ALL forms of African conservation, there are huge deficits in required funding. Removing trophy hunting will further increase that. Even just campaigning against it furthers the deficit by diverting funds to opposing misguided, damaging campaigns instead of fully dedicating money and time to genuine, in the field needs. And, seeking to eliminate hunting tourism is masochistic to anyone who asserts that photo tourism should be the only land use. Legal hunting not only buffers national parks, but helps fund them as well, via government coffers.

A cost of living crisis is currently one of the UK’s biggest problems. Yet supporters of this bill beg for donations from the public. How richly ironic, as the “experts” backing it are primarily celebrities and public figures, who not only lack conservation credentials, but have only likely spent time in Africa whilst on luxury photo safaris, and make wages in the upper five to seven digit categories. Their flair for the dramatic and ability to sway public opinion simply via their high profile status and popularity should not be abused as it is. How is it moral and right of such people to tell post-independent, developing African countries that it’s unacceptable to sustainably use wildlife as a valuable, renewable natural resource to generate revenue, feed citizens, and support communities and economies, especially on lands where business options are few, tax bases are miniscule, and average annual wages are typically low?

One MP implores that, “let us be on the right side of history”. That is impossible if legislation is enacted based upon factually wrong opinions. Sir Roger Gale even went so far as to say that anyone who spoke out against this bill deserved public opprobrium (disgrace/harsh criticism) and whatever backlash they’d receive.

Repeating untruths via disinformation campaigns does not validate them, no matter how many times they are reiterated. Regardless of how anyone personally feels about hunting tourism in Africa or anywhere else, this campaign is a blatant violation of public trust, a show of disrespect that assumes constituents can be easily manipulated, and will not solve any conservation challenges.

A popular saying in Africa is that a leopard cannot change its spots. An expression meaning that a person cannot change their basic nature. They are who they are. People who insist on misleading others with disinformation will always do so. Their inability to change their own nature, in this case, has much dangerous potential to change the prospects for nature itself. If you really do care about wildlife, please don’t allow that to happen. Seek the truth and act accordingly. Conservation of real leopards, and all other flora and fauna, in Africa, and everywhere else, depends upon such clarification.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Don't Send in the Clowns

Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:28:23 GMT

As a writer, I recognize the utility of analogies. As a photographer, I am very aware of the importance of focus. But as a conservationist, I am dismayed when people use the former incorrectly in manipulative manners, and the latter at focal lengths fixed no further than their own interests, in misguided attempts to blur, distort and misrepresent reality. Because in conservation, such an approach can and has had multiple degrading effects on not only nature’s future, but on the lives and livelihoods of people who depend upon it as well.

Which is why I now write this response to a September 27, 2022 Wild Things Initiative blog post by Jared Kukura titled – “Why is a trophy hunting outfitter’s photo being shared by a leading sustainable use activist?”

A bit of important introduction is that Jared describes himself on his website as “a wildlife conservation writer and critic of the sustainable use movement “. Strange and contradictory, as sustainable use is a keystone concept imperative to effective conservation.

In his blog, Jared accuses trophy hunting outfitters of practicing fortress conservation. A fortress is defined as a thing not susceptible to outside influence or disturbance. Yet all of the articles and presentations he criticizes (one of which was penned by me) distinctly state that human encroachment on hunting blocks is an increasing problem due to the habitat degradation that inevitably occurs. So much for his claim of impenetrability.

He bases this claim on one aerial photo of a clearly demarcated line between land designated for human settlements vs. land designated for wildlife. But he fails to tell the following, additional, critically important parts of the story. Perhaps because he simply doesn’t know them due to his selective, limited focus. Such photos of national parks not buffered by hunting blocks appear similarly. Photos of lands too rugged to farm or for human habitation also show lines of usage clearly drawn. And in virtually every African country, what used to appear from the air as islands of people surrounded by wildlife habitat is now islands of wildlife habitat surrounded by people, regardless of whether hunting tourism occurs there or not. What he wishes to derogatorily refer to as fortresses, are lands more appropriately described in today’s current conservation crises as strongholds. Wildlands protecting biodiversity that isn’t even fully catalogued yet.

In his selective focus and criticism, he also fails to realize that all boundaries have two sides. Therefore, fortress agriculture, fortress livestock grazing and fortress human settlements should be concepts considered too. Particularly if one’s focus is wildlife, as lands prioritized for these uses in Africa typically are not very tolerant of wildlife, particularly species that damage crops, kill livestock, attack people, transmit diseases, and compete for water and food resources.

Understanding and ultimately addressing any conservation challenges requires knowing how lands are legally designated and utilized. Jared seemingly doesn’t know that in Tanzania the government is the primary owner and controller of the land. Land is to be utilized for each stated purpose and only by those who are legally authorized to do so, via lease and/or occupancy agreements. Criticizing a hunting outfitter for subscribing to these requirements is hypocritical and persecutory unless you are going to claim the same about photo operators in national parks. And question why any human populations should be permitted to illegally utilize land or resources they are not authorized to, as that is what encroachment is. Particularly injurious as it is typically done unsustainably and in a manner of thievery (poaching) not just from the legal operators on the land, but from all citizens of the

country, as Tanzania’s wildlife is government-owned and is viewed as a valuable, renewable natural resource for BOTH the hunting and photo tourism industries to derive livelihoods from. The anti-poaching, anti-

encroachment patrols needed to try to curb these illegal activities are costly, time consuming, and detract from the full conservation and community benefits these lands could be yielding.

Jared’s fixation on the usage of one aerial photo is interesting. There are indeed plenty of satellite images available that sadly chronicle the very concerning rates of deforestation, land conversion, soil erosion, and water source depletion that is occurring in not just Tanzania, but anywhere that lands prioritized for human needs are being utilized in unregulated and unsustainable ways. Perhaps if he reviewed such imagery, particularly in time-lapse fashion, he would better understand that these problems are real, have far-ranging effects, are occurring

alarmingly rapidly, and are not fairy tales fabricated simply to promote hunting. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor or how many there are of you, if you use land and resources unsustainably, with no concept of conserving for the future, and no recognition that even renewable resources can be severely limited when abused, then ecosystem collapses can and do occur. Sometimes to the point of no return. Everyone who values wildlife – or human life – should condemn such practices.

What aerial photos unfortunately can’t capture directly is the significant ways critics like Jared have contributed to allowing illegal, unsustainable human activities (encroachment and poaching) to overtake lands that were once important wildlife habitat supported financially by legal, sustainable ones (trophy hunting) via their campaigns for trophy import bans or outright hunting bans. People such as rural Tanzanians who do not have a strong conservation mindset due to the ways they could live in the past, when more land and water was available, more moving around was possible, and less people and livestock were competing for resources with wildlife, can, in part, be forgiven or excused for their current lack of foresight and understanding. But people like Jared, on the other hand, who claim to be concerned about conservation, live in parts of the world where many historical mistakes are currently trying to be corrected at great cost and effort, and yet write about or advocate for how they feel

conservation can be accomplished in ignorance or dismissal of reality in other places, cannot be forgiven and are inexcusable. Jared calls for viewing conservation on a global scale, but wildlife is not even valued in a universally global sense. The globe is comprised of countless local problems, priorities and perspectives that absolutely must be addressed for any collective positive impacts to ever truly occur.

Local concerns like the ones faced by rural communities that hunting outfitters in Tanzania, such as Mike Angelides, whom Jared criticizes, are not only required to assist with, but do so voluntarily additionally. Not only Mike and his company, but every outfitter and professional hunter who is a member of the African Professional Hunters Association has been directly involved to varying degrees in funding or building schools, maternity wards, hospitals, medical dispensaries, water and toilet facilities, solar energy installations, and roads for not only rural Tanzanians but also for the government game scouts who help to protect the area’s wildlife resources. They have also all provided training and employment opportunities for rural people, which in turn supports all of their families and economies as well. They have sponsored children to attend school from the primary to the university level, provided meat that contributes to food security, and assisted with funeral expenses and support for families of their staff whose members have been killed or injured in human-wildlife conflict situations or while on duty conducting anti-poaching patrols.

In all honesty, Jared, I know of zero wildlife conservation writers who are critics of the sustainable use movement, such as yourself, who have done any of these things. Perhaps you could start the trend? I doubt it though, as when you were challenged in a blog comment to put your money where your mouth was and to take over a vacant hunting block, you retreated with the typical response of those who doth protest hunting. You said, “I’m willing to bet that simply doing nothing would be a much better alternative to trophy hunting at this point”. I, and many others, would gladly take you up on that bet. Your condoning of unsustainable use guarantees we’d win. And guarantees that the poor people whom you feign concern for would only be further impoverished.

Not only is Mike Angelides strongly affiliated with the Dallas Safari Club, but I am proudly a member as well, and both a literary award winner (as you noted) and photo contest winner. The mission of this group of dedicated individuals is to promote conservation, education, and advocacy for well-regulated hunting and sustainable use of wildlife globally. Goals that Mike and I share and are committed to as well. For over 30 years now, DSC has raised funds for grants that help fund anti- poaching units, minimize human-wildlife conflict, develop better wildlife survey methods, translocate wildlife to establish new populations, provide outdoor education and firearms safety instruction to children, and to pay for deer processing to provide venison meals to the hungry. Just to name a few of the things they do. But, since you are a critic of both the sustainable use movement and the IUCN (whom DSC is a member of), then you, de facto, are a critic of these efforts as well, which is telling as to where your priorities lie.

Also of note and characteristic of the interests you represent, you question why someone would choose a certain photo and what their true intentions may be guided by. Yet in your quest to persecute others you fail at introspection on the same topic. Out of thousands of photos I have ever posted on social media of live animals, you chose one of only several that features me with an animal I have hunted. And, true to anti-hunter form, you didn’t ask permission to do so nor did you credit the professional hunter who took the photo. You accuse Mike Angelides of shooting a photo of a landscape to promote his business, yet you stole a photo of me from another business to promote your business, which is groveling for donations so that you can continue to manipulate people with misinformation. Unacceptable behaviors for any writer with integrity, or anyone genuinely concerned

about conservation.

You question whether I am really a biologist. I have been for over 32 years now, and I have well-developed calluses on my psyche from such constant irritation from unqualified critics like you who attempt to discredit me. And yes, I am also a trophy hunter, a meat hunter, a nature photographer, a conservation writer, a conservationist, a wildlife land owner, a birdwatcher, an activist and advocate for effective conservation programs of any type, an outdoor educator, and a backcountry guide. And, perhaps most importantly, I’m someone who tries desperately to not allow those who are unknowing and unwilling to understand, to destroy what nature we do have with their

ignorance and denial. All of these ways that I describe myself are not mutually exclusive, and are descriptions shared in part or fully by many others who are involved in hunting, professionally or recreationally. They are only considered mutually exclusive by people blindly biased such as yourself.

You scoff at the use of the word study to describe what I wrote about. The basic definition of a study is the devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on a subject. It needn’t be official and published in the scientific literature. But it is a most effective way to gain true understanding of something. You should try it sometime. I’d gladly compose an itinerary and list of costs for you to accompany me in the field in Tanzania sometime on such important endeavors. Firsthand observations are most revealing.

Your blog’s analogies of trophy hunting as fortress conservation and its outfitters as kings reminds me of a much more appropriate, albeit similar themed analogy. That of self-proclaimed conservation writers like yourself who criticize sustainable use as the court jesters. Sources of amusement whose privilege was to be able to talk and mock anyone freely without being punished. They were known as fools, a term derived from the Latin word follis, which means bag of wind. They were comic relief in tense times that might result in tragedy. But pending environmental tragedies such as the continual loss of wildlife habitat and subsequent biodiversity, the persistence of unsustainable human uses, and the time and efforts wasted on combating misinformation such as you peddle cannot be averted or relieved by comedy and foolishness, Jared. Your ignorance would only be laughable if its potential repercussions were not so serious.

The final sentence in your blog implores – “Let’s refocus our concerns”. I will counter with – whenever you are ready to refocus your own concerns, I and everyone else you criticized in this blog, plus our collectively countless colleagues, collaborators, clients, communities and companions will happily provide you with endless suggestions for ways you could truly help rural Tanzanians if you honestly, seriously desired. Actual assistance and addressing of issues that would ultimately benefit nature as well. Your refocusing journey to clarity would start with the simple step of allowing hunting tourism to function as a conservation tool where it works best, doing the same for photo tourism, and seeking ways to enact conservation measures on community lands that are adjacent to both of the aforementioned land uses. Alternatives are not needed. Additions are. The invitation stands, should you genuinely be interested. Until then, blogs, inactions and diversions such as yours only serve to detract from the necessary work at hand that those of us who do understand the need for sustainable use and recognition of reality are professionally, persistently, perpetually and passionately engaged in.

Vanquishing the Cornucopia

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 16:30:15 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

World Rhino Day, on September 22, was created to increase awareness about these unique and beleaguered creatures, whose futures are uncertain. Most posts discuss the present, wherein poaching of these animals for their horns is the primary threat. But the past holds important stories too, particularly in the case of the two African rhino species - the black and the white.

Historically, many rhinos in Africa were killed primarily for meat. Frederick Courteney Selous reported in his books that rhinos had been extirpated in some areas of sub-Saharan Africa by the late 1800's and that many indigenous peoples considered rhino meat to be the finest of all.

Rhinos were also killed in significantly damaging numbers as menaces for those needing to clear and settle lands. A tragically excellent example of this is in J.A. Hunter's book, Hunter. The Wakamba tribe of Kenya had increased sixfold, and increasingly came into conflict with rhinos as their needs for more agricultural lands expanded. They requested help from the British government, who sent J.A. Hunter, a professional hunter and former chairman of Tanganyika National Parks. The Wakamba not only wanted to be able to clear land, but they desired tsetse fly control also, for their cattle. Destroying the extremely dense thorn bush in the Makueni area of the Machakos district where they lived was the only known way at the time to destroy the tsetses. And the only safe way to destroy the bush was to destroy the rhinos.

In three months, 163 rhinos were killed. The poignantly heartbreaking scene as J.A. Hunter and his staff left the area is described as such. "Three months before we had crossed the same country that lay before us. Then it had been a maze of thorn bush and acacia, cut by a tangle of narrow rhino trails. Now it lay bare as a polished table. Mr. Beverly's labor gangs had been moving steadily behind us, cutting down the bush and clearing the land. What a short time before had been as wild a bit of Africa as God ever made was now farming country. Not a tree or bush remained."

Piles of whitened rhino bones were interspersed with great black rings created when labor gangs piled the brush into heaps and burned it. J.A. Hunter lamented that as more and more demands were made by natives for fresh land, he and his staff were sent back time and time again to kill more rhinos. Over one thousand killed by the time he wrote his book. He ends this chapter with the following thoughts. "Is it worth killing off these strange and marvelous animals just to clear a few more acres for a people that are ever on the increase? I do not know. But I know this. The time will come when there is no more land to be cleared. What will be done then? In the meantime the inevitable clash between men and beasts presents a problem and a headache."

This was prior to 1952, when his book was first published. In the 69 years since, countless more wildlife habitat has been converted for human uses.

Habitat loss is, globally, the number one threat to wildlife. Poaching and conflict rank closely behind it, but without the land and its resources to support nature, we simply cannot have rhinos or any other wild creatures for that matter. Finding ways to sustainably support humans on land that already cleared and converted is an essential conversation challenge. One just as important as promoting a diversity of sustainable wildlife uses that can support lands primarily as wildlife habitat.

THE ELEPHANT(S) IN THE ROOM -- Size DOES Matter

Mon, 09 May 2022 13:58:18 GMT

In April 2022, a photo of a legally hunted elephant that was posted on a private Instagram account was leaked into the public domain, quickly went viral, and caused a global stir. Primarily because it was described as being the largest bull shot in Botswana since 1996, and included the specific weight and sizes of the tusks. These dimensions exceeded 100 lbs. of ivory on at least one side, which placed this bull in the tusker category, a superior size range only attained by older elephants and not seen regularly in many elephant populations nowadays.

In this original, now misappropriated post, most people, including many familiar with hunting and/or elephants, would have likely simply looked at the awkward angle photo and concluded that it was indeed a very big elephant. Period. But when the revered, almost legendary standard of 100 lbs. was mentioned, controversy and scrutiny were invited. Why? Because even if it need not be so, hunting elephants is a contentious topic, especially so in Botswana due to the recent lifting of a ban on it. And tuskers, are, whether it is justified or not, considered a sacrosanct category of elephants by many people with varying opinions on hunting.

But does size really matter? And, if so, the size of what, to whom?

The brevity of the original post was initially how size mattered. Trophy hunting is constantly under fire these days by many who do not understand its utilities and merits as a conservation and funding tool in Africa. When such critics see a short post primarily focused on the size of an animal, one which is the biggest of the big, they primarily see hubris on behalf of the hunters. They see a dead animal which they are told is a superior specimen, and they instantly care more about what has been DONE, than what that particular hunt may be DOING for the area it was conducted in, and the communities who may be living there.

The size of their predictably judgmental reactions at viewing such photos without enough proper context attached to them matters greatly. In the absence of including the critical conservation facts, strong, emotional reactions quickly boiled up into the rapid formation of angry global mobs ever-increasing in size, conjuring up the worst stories they could possibly imagine. The photo was eagerly circulated in hateful, accusatory manners, and the untruths swelled in size. And what a shame that was, as only after the large hullabaloo rapidly ballooned to massive proportions, did the important conservation story behind this particular hunt emerge. Unfortunately, non-factual opinions, especially persecutory ones, seem to have a critical mass. Once attained, facts are readily dismissed and become insignificant in comparison to the size of hate and the fiction that is generated by it.

Social and other forms of media feed on such phenomena, manipulating and altering our perceptions of the world, often to the point that we forget that these perspectives may not be fully representative of the truth. That there are real worlds beyond social media and what the journalists and news crews present to us. The size and scope of their often inaccurate and biased claims matters tremendously. Particularly to people who are directly affected by decisions that may be made by masses of people who have no direct connections to the issue at all.

So in the real world, did the size of this bull matter? Yes and no.

Trophy hunting is a typically very selective pursuit, where large males are indeed sought after. But size is not the only consideration, as the ultimate animal to shoot is the post-mature male, who has had the chance to breed. His age is prioritized over his size. In the case of elephants, however, tusk weight does strongly correlate with age. But many aged elephants also have broken tusks due to the rigors of their lengthy lifespans. These animals, because of their advanced age, are also desirable and appropriate trophy quality animals.

Did the size of this bull’s tusks matter to the elephant population? Probably not. Tuskers, due to their enormous dentition, experience difficulty eating, breeding, surviving droughts, and traveling, which adds to their already high energetic costs and stressors, at a time in their lifespans when their last set of molars is wearing down and creating problems with energy acquisition. They also are not very competitive in fighting for the breeding rights to females in estrus, as younger bulls or old bulls with shorter tusks are not only more agile in mounting females and maneuvering whilst fighting, but are also more effective at stabbing an opponent, sometimes lethally.

Does size matter to cow elephants? That seems unlikely. Bulls of breeding age enter a condition of heightened aggression and unpredictable behavior associated with a surge in testosterone levels that is called musth. Akin, somewhat, to the rut in deer. Musth is an energetically costly activity, whose frequency declines as an elephant bull ages. When in musth, a bull typically travels more (sometimes great distances) to hopefully find a cow in estrus, and then must be competitive enough against any challenging bulls to actually mate with her and guard her while she is in a receptive state. The elephant who is today a tusker was likely most able to withstand the rigors imposed by such a mating system when he was in his prime breeding years, then carrying ivory in more so the 50 lb. range or thereabouts.

Did the size of these tusks matter to the gene pool? Scientific papers on the heritability of tusk length are lacking. The tuskers that are known while alive are also not the only ones out there. Bulls in this size category are poached, only some of which may ever be recorded in any way, and are also found dead, of age-related effects and killed by younger, stronger bulls. If a bull lives long enough, has adequate nutrition, and does not break his tusks, it seems likely that attaining tusker status is really not an incredibly rare genetic quality, but more so just an attainable caliber from the culmination of four plus decades of favorable circumstances.

At 50 plus years of age, this bull also had already had chances to pass his genes on. But it’s important to consider additionally that females contribute at least half of the genetic material to any offspring, not all males in any population breed, chromosomal damage and infertility often occurs in aged animals, and offspring produced must be raised to maturity and then produce offspring themselves to make genetic contributions truly count to any gene pool. And even though we humans treasure 100 lb. plus tusks, both as hunting AND photographic trophies, we do not know if our desires to maintain such animals actually translates into anything truly positive for elephants themselves.

Does size matter to the poacher? Nowadays, probably not. Any animal carrying ivory could potentially bring money on the illegal market. To the point that in a few populations, many of the elephants are now tuskless. Not because poachers were shooting single digit percentages of mature or post-mature males each year, like regulated trophy hunting does, but because poachers kill all ages and sexes, with no limit on the numbers, and at any and all times of the year. And killing of this scope and magnitude can indeed deplete entire populations, let alone gene pools.

Does size matter to the photo tourist or photo safari operator? Not hugely, as most tourists are quite delighted to see elephants of any size. Often to a fault, sadly enough, as many tourists enjoy seeing large numbers of elephants, without considering the impacts such overly abundant populations may have. There are, however, a few places where photo tourists specifically choose to go primarily because true tuskers are seen there on a regular basis, such as Tsavo and Amboseli National Parks, in Kenya. Although these animals do generate much revenue, unlike trophy hunting, where one client pays a large sum of money to hunt one elephant, with minimal infrastructure required, the typical photographic model is that many people contribute smaller amounts of money resulting in larger human impacts on the landscape.

Interestingly, about a week after many people were so angered by the tusker legally killed by a trophy hunter, a famous, highly photographed tusker named Tolstoy died in this iconic region of Kenya, from an infected spear wound inflicted by a farmer understandably protecting his crops. His family’s annual, irreplaceable food supply, whose loss was of critically important size to him. Something akin to a virtual funeral was held for this iconic elephant, with many on social media calling for the arrest of the farmer. When an elephant poses such direct threats to local people’s livelihoods, and can result in loss of life as well, do they care how big it is? No. Human wildlife conflict is of constant concern, and in these areas where the photographic industry wants tuskers fully protected, the size of the costs to monitor their movements, mitigate conflict, and provide transport plus veterinary care when needed can be massive.

Conversely, the trophy hunted tusker was a phantom, unknown to the photographic industry. Killed via a legal action that contributed significantly to the remote, rural community within its range. A community that lives, like many in northern Botswana, on or adjacent to marginal lands that are designated specifically for wildlife by the government, but are not suitable for photo tourism. Lands that do not allow villagers to keep livestock, so their only legal option to generate meaningful amounts of revenue and meat is via trophy hunting, utilizing wildlife in regulated manners as valuable, sustainable, renewable natural resources.

Does size matter to these communities? Although rural citizens can and will gratefully utilize elephants of any size, trophy hunters will pay significantly more money to hunt in areas where they are likely to have the opportunity to potentially encounter large-tusked elephants. Because part of the allure of trophy hunting is just that – not the guarantee of any killing, but the opportunity of pursuit in areas demonstrably capable of producing trophy quality animals.

Does size matter to the anti-hunting and animal rights organizations who are very vocal in situations like this? It does seem so. The larger and more renowned an animal is typically translates into claims that these animals are also more rare and more endangered, even if those claims are untrue. It’s a convenient and very effective way to increase donations from people who may be well-meaning but, unfortunately, not well-informed. Collectively, the money from those who are manipulated by untruths builds to impressive sums. Money whose ultimate destination is often not questioned, as it is mistakenly assumed by its donors that it is “saving elephants”, when, in fact, it may more so be ensuring the financial future of the collecting organization instead.

What are the sizes then that ultimately matter? The current size of the elephant population in Botswana. A size, density and concentration coupled with lack of, or novel movements in, areas that is resulting in large scale habitat changes impacting elephants, humans, and many other species as well.

One such enormous impact is the loss of 2000 year old baobab trees in the most popular photo tourist area in Botswana - the Okavango Delta. Iconic trees, ancient behemoths that many people also consider sacrosanct, killed by other icons - elephants. The loss of habitat and subsequent biodiversity, although challenging to fully chronicle without proper historical data, is inevitably happening when ecosystem engineers like elephants become too numerous, in a big way. Excessive in numbers on a scale that trophy hunting itself cannot control.

The size of the impacts of people from other countries who push for legislation such as trophy import restrictions or bans that disincentivize hunting in Botswana or elsewhere also greatly matters. Not all of Africa is suitable for photo tourism, nor do all African residents and their governments desire only one specific utilization of wildlife. When land uses cannot prioritize wildlife as a funding mechanism for their maintenance, they quickly become converted to uses not conducive to supporting wildlife. Other sizes that greatly matter are those of fences and other barriers, water sources, human settlements, cost of translocating wildlife and lack of funding to address all of these challenges. All matter immensely more so than the size of any one elephant.

We can only have as many elephants as we have habitat resources to support. People who insist that more is better instead of what numbers can we support in healthy, sustainable ways are threatening conservation with these attitudes.

The size of the impacts of those hugely upset about tusk sizes is also very important. Many hunting outfitters in Botswana cater to both hunting and photo tourists, and many international hunters support both hunting and photographic tourism. In volatile situations like this photograph precipitated, name and shame campaigns are directed at, and death threats are issued to, outfitters, professional hunters and hunting clients. Boycotts of countries and cancellations of photo safaris are called for. A renewed interest in trophy import bans or restrictions results. All at a crucial time when many dedicated, hardworking people had been making headway in various countries on these issues. Progress that required huge efforts, by many people, only to be potentially jeopardized by the brevity of a post emphasizing size, that angered people who do not know or understand the conservation story behind the photo.

The size of all these very real problems that need solved is not just the largest elephant in the room, it is the most important. How do we truly accomplish effective elephant conservation that also addresses the needs of the people who must live amongst them? Not by saving tuskers, not by banning trophy hunting, not by turning all of Botswana into a photo safari destination, and not by catering to the desires of people or organizations who focus on what they perceive is the problem based mostly upon their own personal preferences.

We solve the problems by first acknowledging the elephants in the room. Not just one tusker, that nobody has seen until it appears dead on Instagram, but entire herds of all sizes of elephants, both literally and figuratively. The true problems that no one wants to mention, even though they are glaringly obvious. The size of these problems and the size of our efforts to effectively address them are the sizes that ultimately matter.

WHAT IS CONSERVATION?

Sun, 27 Mar 2022 19:24:32 GMT

There is, unfortunately, a confusing array of definitions of the word conservation. At its most basic level, it can be described as a wise and careful utilization of any resource. It’s not a completely hands-off, fully protected approach, nor is it an absolute, full utilization of anything. It typically is a collective of actions that lie somewhere in between those two extremes. It’s an understanding that nature rarely exists nowadays entirely on its own, with no human influences. We act in concert with the natural world, and our choices can be either discordant or melodious in that regard. Conservation requires the realization that what we do today affects what we can have tomorrow, both in the short as well as the long term, and that natural resources, although renewable, are not limitless.

Not to add to the confusion, but to illustrate just how complicated the subject is, conservation is likely best defined as an amalgamation and orchestration of a seemingly endless myriad of, -ations.

Beginning with inspiration, which may be brought about by adoration, appreciation, observation, obligation, prioritization, speculation, or devastation. Visualization of what needs accomplished involves dedication, and it may be one’s vocation or avocation, or simply be a collateral consideration or inclination of simply your recreation or a vacation.

It may also be a necessitation because of commodification, exploitation, devastation, accumulation, perturbation, regulation, importation, exportation, fragmentation, deforestation, exploration, or legislation. WHEW!

It involves populations of all nations, which may require estimations to determine whether supplementation, minimization, regulation, rejuvenation, consolidation, translocation, or preservation may be required. And, what applications that result in the numbers of these populations increasing or decreasing have as implications and ramifications.

All of these actions may involve experimentation, documentation, investigation, representation, litigation, legislation, administration, collaboration, accreditation, organization, negotiation, diversification, education, and fortification of foundations.

Along the way, those engaging in conservation will likely experience prognostication, gratification, confirmation, negation, complications, consternation, hesitation, frustration, jubilation, perspiration, devastation, and celebration.

Does it sound complex? Does it sound like although there may be common themes, each situation can be very unique? Does it sound like sometimes hard decisions must be made and that it’s not a black and white, clearcut topic with a one size fits all approach? It should sound that way. There are indeed many problems to be solved, many challenges to address, many techniques to employ, and many successes to celebrate as well.

Conservation is not just do we designate land as national parks or not. Do we hunt animals or only photograph them? Do we eat meat or not? Do we use water for lawns or to grow crops? It’s a deciding of how we utilize our renewable natural resources. What we do with land, which provides habitat, the primary component any aspect of nature absolutely requires. It’s a declaration of what our priorities are. What will we tolerate, promote, persecute, propagate, protect or partake of? A reckoning of how we can best accommodate our needs and wants, and how far ahead can we envision or do we care about. And, very importantly, it’s not just the conversation that all of these concerns can readily generate. Heated and polarized all too often. It’s the actions we directly take to ensure that we do not destroy any resources that we wish to see remain.

MODERN DAY WITCH HUNTING

Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:33:34 GMT

History often uncannily repeats itself. Particularly in ways that showcase the undesirable elements of human nature.

An ugly part of Connecticut's past occurred in the mid-1600's, when the infamous Connecticut Witch Trials took place. People were wrongfully convicted by prosecutorial tribunals who were certain that misguided, manufactured hysteria, conjured up accusations, and hateful, persecutory public pressure was true. "Witches" were wrongfully blamed as being the cause of both natural and man-made disasters, and were declared via mob mentality to be deserving of death. Hartford, Connecticut was a prominent area for such gripping hysteria and wrongful persecution of those whom they marginalized, refused to understand and slated to be hated and eliminated, instead.

Fast forward to today.....in the same area, but 358 years later, where a modern day version of this is in progress. Connecticut passed a bill that its supporters claim will "save" African wildlife by banning trophy imports of six key African species. It is not even an accurate description of the bill, let alone what effects such a bill would have. The approved version of the bill is meaningless, impotent, and a significant waste of time and money, as it was five years in the making and accomplishes nothing. Federal law preempts state law, and these species are federally permitted. Yet 30 senators, the governor, and some of the residents of Connecticut are applauding its passage and calling it a hard won victory. What do they think they won? Awards for deceit, dishonesty, ignorance and blatant wastage of time and funds?

And an award for resurrecting the witch hunt mentality.

You may or may not like trophy hunting. Chances are good you might not even know exactly what it is, as there is much misinformation disseminated about it. But you don't have to like it. You only need to understand that if you truly do care about Africa's wildlife having a sustainable future, trophy hunting has merits and utilities, and an essential role to play in this conservation arena. The primary one of which is the protection of significantly more wildlife habitat than national parks in Africa encompass. Hunting lands are often not suitable for photo tourism, act as buffer zones around many national parks, and will likely be engulfed by encroachment from human settlement activities if no longer supported by hunting. And habitat loss is the number one danger to African wildlife.

As more people become increasingly urbanized, so does the disconnect from direct interactions with nature and the understanding of what hunting truly is. And human nature is, sadly, to hate or fear what is foreign to our own lives and what we don't understand. Blaming modern day trophy hunting for any declines in Africa's wildlife is just as misplaced as the hateful persecution of "witches" was for events Connecticut residents didn't understand hundreds of years ago. And, as another very sad repetition of history, many anti-hunters nowadays feel that hunters should be killed, just as fictitious witches were once deemed deserving of death.

What eventually stopped the 16 year long reign of these Witch Trials? A governor of the colony who utilized his firsthand knowledge and experience with the true issues at hand to stand up against the false accusations, a man who made the public realize that the demons whom they conjured up were not really demons at all. Hopefully individuals of similar integrity and commitment exist today as well, who will work hard to allow rational thought to prevail over manufactured hysteria, and reason and pragmatism to triumph over folly and delusion. Individuals in our government system who will consult with those in Africa who would be directly affected by any import bans, and who know the real issues that need addressed. Africa's wildlife could benefit most from that approach.

If you live in Connecticut or in any other state or country that proposes trophy import ban legislation, please seek the truth if you really do care about Africa's wildlife - and its humans too. These campaigns are typically funded and promoted by animal rights activists and anti-hunters, who illustrate through their actions that they prioritize hating hunters over contributing in any meaningful ways to conservation themselves.

Historians agree that what the Connecticut Witch Trials should've taught us is that we need to always remain vigilant of what hatred, ignorance and lack of reason can accomplish. Nothing positive.

THE NATURE OF THE BEAST

Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:27:04 GMT

Lichtenstein's hartebeest, kongoni in Swahili. A characteristic miombo antelope, with a uniquely odd appearance and heart-shaped horns. I find them inexplicably quite appealing, and am particularly fond of this photo I captured of two of them one fine morning in Piti Game Reserve, in Tanzania.

But, besides me, who else values them?

Do tourists book photo safaris in the hopes of seeing them? No. Many tourists don't even know what they are. Do professional photographers hope to earn fame and money from shooting the ultimate photo of them? No. They're not considered iconic or photogenic enough, unless they're featured in a scene as prey being attacked or consumed by a charismatic predator. Do pastoralists welcome their presence? No, as they are selective grazers who compete with domestic livestock for precious grass and water resources. Do rural dwellers value them? Yes, as a meat source. But, as such, they are usually killed illegally, in indiscriminate, unregulated, unsustainable manners. And not only for subsistence but for the commercial bushmeat trade, wherein none of the profits contribute to wildlife conservation. Poached, which actually costs conservation funders to combat instead.

Who, then, uniquely gives value to the Lichtenstein's hartebeest, in regulated ways that generate legitimate revenue for the Tanzania government and its residents by sustainably utilizing these unique animals as a renewable, valuable natural resource, part of an effective conservation model that benefits all of nature? Hunting outfitters and their clients do. Although hunters typically don't travel specifically to solely hunt Lichtenstein's hartebeests, pursuing them in their native habitats, in remote wilderness areas, is definitely part of the allure of a classic hunting safari in Tanzania.

Hartebeest are highly territorial antelopes. Only approximately a third of the adult males will ever likely hold a territory, and their tenure as breeders is typically brief - less than a year. This inherent surplus of males and high turnover of sires allows the males to be very sustainably hunted under proper quota systems and trophy hunting regulations also forbid the hunting of any females or young.

Hartebeest and other plains game species may not be the premier animals pursued in hunting safaris, but their inclusion in the funding model gives them value that adds to the protection of vast, intact ecosystems that are not only critical for biodiversity, but also for the ecological integrity of landscapes, additionally benefiting adjacent human populations as well, in collateral ways.

But anti-hunters and animal rights activists, via their campaigns to ban either hunting tourism and/or trophy imports, seek to eliminate the one regulated, sustainable use of this animal that can and does contribute positively to not only its own conservation but to every other species of flora and fauna in its habitats.

Regardless of how one feels about hunting, this persecution is difficult for me to understand. The only way it makes sense is if those who wish to render legal hunting programs inviable feel that their emotions and preferences are more important than actual conservation needs. Removing necessary funding sources has high associated costs. And who ultimately pays? The wildlife does. Only wildlife unequivocally needs wildlands. Humans can fend on and often even prefer converted, highly altered landscapes. But nature cannot fully exist in such settings.

People who don't share my intrinsic appreciation of hartebeest often describe them as looking foolish, but I beg to differ. Appearances are very deceiving. They are actually very keen, clever, sharp-sighted beasts whose value to the retention of irreplaceable vastnesses of truly wild country should be acknowledged. They are every bit as important as the better known, more beloved species. Underappreciated and even sometimes ridiculed, hartebeest are not the fools. The people who refuse to see the necessity of giving such animals legitimate value, which in turn allows their required habitats to compete against alternative land uses, are worthy of that moniker instead, and remind me of the following quote.

"For there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men." - Herman Melville

Madness should never prevail over pragmatism and reality, particularly not if you truly do wish to see nature persist.