I expect camel is tasty. I've never had it but I have eaten a lot of llama and it is good.

I’ve had camel a few times. Pretty damn good as a burger and a steak. I couldn’t tell anything different with the chocolate.

There’s a place or two in Doha where you can get camel steak on pizza, but I never got around to trying it.

pretty much all of the people in here complaining about sport hunting are blind and don't want to see the truth. But, but eco tourism! Take a camera!

Exactly.

The most anti-gun/anti-hunters are ones that do not hunt and do not own firearms. And yet, they eat meat, own leather products. etc. Pretty sad actually.

Disney really fucked up a lot of people.

If you want to hunt camel go to Australia, they are considered an invasive species there, kind of like hogs in Texas.

Posted below

Lol.you don’t like that everyone doesn’t agree with you so you make up stuff. Culling is needed in some instances and those that need it should obviously go to big game hunters. But even both of the links you posted trying to argue with me said there were management options that would do a better job and would drop the need for culling. Since you act like eco tourism isn’t viable and you’ll obviously try to say the following links are bias (huff post definitely is so I quoted what showed actual numbers), so please post something that shows big game hunters are bringing in more money than eco-tourism. If you can’t then I guess you need to STFU about that part of your weak ass argument.  Right now you are 0 for 2.  

Having said this, I’m for Safari style hunts on animals where it is viable and where they have been properly managed.

1st report
2nd report

“Wildlife-based eco-tourism is a big industry in Africa and dwarfs trophy hunting in its economic impact. According to a report by the World Tourism Organization, wildlife-based eco-tourism generated an estimated $34.2 billion in tourist spending in 2013. In Zimbabwe, tourism provides 6.4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of the country, dwarfing the meager 0.2 percent that trophy hunters provide.”

Rhodesia

HSI report was pretty clear “Botswana, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe”.

No I will pass

Self edited in case I go on a list some where

Edited for the editor, who I agree with.

I read both those reports and they are basically saying that all tourism revenue in studied country is more than Safari revenue. Then they quickly start calling it all Eco Tourism.

They show no data to back up their claims.

And the Huff Post article is a parrot of the Humane Society.


About as one sided as they can be manipulated to be.

Your free to post anything that shows that big game hunting brings in more revenue. My guess is the vast amount of normal tourism revenue is based off their wildlife. Wether you want to call that eco-tourism or not is up to you.

And whether it’s bias or not are the numbers incorrect?

*****I said vast majority and I’ll admit when I make a mistake. The following tourism report says “Over one-third of all direct tourism GDP across Africa in 2018 attributed to wildlife (36.3%)”. It says that number is 29.3B brought in yearly.  Tourism report

Using the HSI report again “Trophy hunting brings in less than $132 million in tourism spending to the eight study countries out of $17 billion annual tourism spending, or just 0.78 percent. SCI wrongly alleged that trophy hunting-related tourism contributes $426 million annually.”

Even using the Safari Club International’s higher number, hunting safari’s are not bringing near the amount of revenue as other animal based revenue. Of course that’s a huge amount of revenue especially to an impoverished economy so that’s why I’m not saying big game hunting shouldn’t be allowed. The OP has been acting like I’m talking out of my ass when I said that I myself would only want to go to view them and now I’m just making a point.

If I ever land a gig in Australia, I’m going to make it a point to go hunt kangaroos and camels. I’ve eaten both and would nom again.

If it’s done responsibly hell yes.  It’s often healthy to hunt certain elephants in herds, rouge males and such.  

My fear is the reserve would be so desperate for cash they’d let hunters shoot any elephant, which could be horrible for the health of the remaining animals.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989418302336

I second this!

Look a few post up at my last reply. Still pales in comparison to the 29.3B in overall animal based tourism. You keep talking shit about people wanting to just go view them and yet it brings in a ton more.  Your article suggest even less in revenue than I allowed for in my post.  Up until Covid, animal based tourism was growing rapidly as well which would have further limited the overall impact of big game revenue. You have made multiple comments that make it sound like other forms of tourism are not as viable when the opposite is actually the truth. Again, show me proof to back it up.  We already know hunting brings money into the economy. Show me where it is bringing more than viewing only type safaris.

eco tourism is only really viable for the large national parks. Most Elephants live on private land. What you're promoting and acting like it's the best solution would result in the animals only living in national parks.

I’m basing what I’m saying on the articles that you posted that say that the culling of elephants would be greatly reduced by opening the areas between national parks to let the elephants freely move between the parks which would normalize the populations between areas that are overpopulated and underpopulated plus have the added benefit diversifying the genetics of the population. Then I’m using actual revenue numbers to show that the value in the animals is much more impactful for tourism as a whole as opposed to being based around hunting which very limited in the overall picture.

***And why is it only viable in large national parks?  Because that’s mostly where they are protected?  I could understand that, but then there’s is the argument that maybe the land should be expanded because of the revenue it generates.

I’m free to not post anything because I’m not concerned with which bias side of the coin wants to say which massaged numbers are more in their favor.  The article you posted is sorta smelly bullshit at best.

Hunting animals and managing them is better for them.  Taking pictures of them and using the revenues for conservation efforts is good for them too.  You can have both.

Elephants are overpopulated because it get anti money to save them and anti poacher money to protect them. It’s a win/win for both sides of the coin.   It also get the Chinese some horn.

The numbers came from Dominion didn’t they, lol. What bias did the tourism report have when it tries to encourage tourism into the area even if it is for hunting. And as for your last statement, I’ve said that multiple times.

They are underpopulated in areas as well. I’m arguing for a better overall management which does include culling (by big game hunters mind you) but on a possibly more limited basis until populations stabilize throughout the over/under populated areas. To act as if the whole are is overpopulated right now and needed to be everywhere over there is needed to be hunted is not true.  Also, a overall healthy population would allow for more hunting permits/year long term.

This is also only for the larger elephants and not the smaller forest elephant which are indeed limited in number.

The "feels" in this post are enormous .  Just pointing out.  Most animals don't die of old age. They are killed and eaten. By something or someone
The real world isn’t Disney

It is the universal truth that if an animal has no value.   It is worthless. If it comes into conflict with humans and there is no good reason or value to allow it it will be exterminated.   This rule applies every where. Not only Africa .

Yeah, my opinion on the matter was based on Horton Hears a Who and Dumbo, what total BS.  Out of approximately 29B, less than 500M comes from hunting yet they have no value other than hunting.

You don't know jack shit about African Hunting. Nothing and I mean nothing goes to waste. They even use the contents of the digestive tract. Kill a large animal and you will see a slight damp stain on the ground. Look in the trees and vultures look at each other and go WTF!

AND I’ll repeat myself.

Hunting animals and managing them is better for them.  Taking pictures of them and using the revenues for conservation efforts is good for them too.  You can have both.

What round for Pablo Escobar's escaped invasive Columbian Hippos?

I say we hunt them at night on land with braced 458 pistols and night vision

An invasive species with no natural predator destroying the local environment, I’m all for that.

Pretty certain that these early safaris that you keep posting is what nearly wiped out elephant populations across the continent. As for your constant “overpopulated” argument here are more numbers showing overall population across the continent are actually decreasing.

Safari Bookings


“Poachers are currently shooting elephants at a rate of about 100 per day, or about 30,000 every year. In other words, about 10% of the population is being wiped out ever year. More elephants are being killed than being born.”

Africa Geography

Damn you're still butt hurt? If you'd actually bothered to watch the videos I posted instead of just assuming their content you'd see how wrong you are. Not only did they discuss limits and conservation but many of the professional hunters bought large chunks of land and developed them into private nature reserves for the animals.

I’m not watching your nearly hour long videos. You’ve been butthurt with everyone who didn’t agree with you and have been called out for it by a number of people. You posting incorrect info when going after people is what has kept me coming back. They mention conservation in the video but the populations went from 12M to just thousands in less than 100 years. I’ve posted numbers that show that non-hunting tourism to view the animals has brought in a shit ton more money annually (remember saying people weren’t visiting and eco-style isn’t viable) and I’ve just posted that overall the population is declining even though a few areas may be populated (you just continue saying they are overpopulated which is not entirely accurate). Post your numbers up refuting what I’ve shown instead of old videos.

I wonder how many weeks until the Democrats decide to outlaw the importation of most game animal parts (trophy's) from Africa.  Lion, Tiger, Rhino, Elephant, Hippo, Giraffe - those are all easy.  But they will probably go for farm raised animals as well (all the antelope family).

---
How much money does the government get from a video tourist taking pictures of an Elephant?  I think the last time I looked, the trophy fee (which I think the Government does get) was around $20k.  While it is possible for an individual to go hunt in Africa for less than $10k - I think the average is probably closer to $20k without taking any of the big 5. (I was budgeting $20k for 1 hunter and a guest).  

You could do a Cape Buffalo hunt (focused on that one animal), probably for $15k, but $20k is still probably more likely.  Part of the issue is that transportation is expensive (say $3k round trip), trophy fee for the Cape would be closer to $5k.  You could easily spend $3k just on the taxidermy on that animal.  Throw in $2k for guides, lodging, and incidentals...  

The Safari Bookings link I posted above had prices of just over $850 pp to over $4000 pp.  Don’t know their tax rates or how much they would charge these safaris to use the reserve but I’d guess the government is getting a cut. When the ratio of viewers to hunter is thousands to one it would add up quickly in favor of revenue from the viewing style safari. The money from lodging, food, guides, etc that also comes along with both of these styles of safaris is far greater in the viewing style than hunting.  Most of these styles of study usually do an overall impact to the economy so the 29M likely considers all of these factors including the extra that hunting brings such as taxidermy etc. According to one of the reports, the pro-hunting group SCI claimed 426M of the revenue is generated from hunting related tourism.

The booking is basically the cheapest part of the safari.  IIRC the order of expenses (least to highest) is booking, travel, taxidermy, trophy fees.  trophy fees don't happen till you pull the trigger - but generally will happen at that point regardless of you finding the animal afterwards.  Of course for most people, taxidermy only happens after you find the animal (unless you simply want to buy a rug made from some farm raised animal).  I think Zebra rugs started a little under 1k at last years Dallas Safari Club show - and you did not even need to leave the building to buy one. If all you want to do is take pictures - you could probably just pay for the first two and have your vacation for about 5k for the first person and probably 4k for guests after that.

The issue is most tourists will not want to pay for booking and travel.  If they do pay for travel, it will need to be associated with something much more akin to a higher end destination vacation because they are not going to want to spend 2 days of travel and 7-14 days looking at animals that they could see at Disney World in 30 minutes.  Lets face it.  Southern Africa is pretty damn low on most people's list of vacation destinations.  You have to be very motivated to want to do it, and quite simply - hunters have a lot more motivation.

Again, the number posted reflect total economic revenues brought in.  That’s what an economic impact study does, it looks at all the other areas where revenue is generated related to the activity. Those include everything included with the hunt and after the hunt, not just the big game fees.  People are obviously motivated to visit there as it is bringing in over 29B of economic revenue. The hunters are are only a small total proportion of that revenue.

I wonder how much tourism is being conducted on municipal and government lands vs that of hunting being conducted on private lands on which photo tourism isn’t economically viable? I’m not saying hunting brings in more but people with fewer animals in a lesser developed area with lesser access is going to drive the price up considerably for a tour. Meaning it’s not economically viable for the masses and therefore not a successful option for all areas vs what is typically expected by one hunting willing to pay more to get to a particular area. Thus they both provide economic value but to different groups and therefore they can successfully coexist and are both necessary.

For instance Kruger national park is something like 1-2% of the total land mass in RSA. But it’s also widely known as a tourist destination with something like 1.5 million people per year and has a airport that services it thus making travel much cheaper then a single individual on a bush plane. So it would economically viable to bring in revenue to a small region but doesn’t necessarily help those else where. Then there’s the population issues of the animals being confined. In some places they cull elephants to keep populations managed so they don’t eat themselves out of food. In others they use contraceptives to stop them from breeding neither method allows for more elephants, both cost money they don’t have. The population can similarly be controlled through controlled and managed hunting. Which in turn instead of costing money gives money to the programs that can protect them from uncontrolled poaching.  

The largest threat to absolutely any animal population is the population of the people in there range and the development of there natural habitat. The population of the continent of Africa has exploded growing five times since 1950. On the same time scale we went from an estimated 5 million elephants to an estimated half million today. The countries have developed and thus pushed animals of all species off there natural lands or killed them in droves to suit the developmental needs.

Better Study

This report gives a better break down of the revenue distributions.

The reason for the 80/20 is less hunters vs more Disney Safaris people.

While the revenue is great, it only places value on the animals in the areas designated for these types of eco adventures. In the places where they aren’t, the locals see certain animals as competition to food supplies and poachers see them as revenue. Neither of these two have a sustainable management philosophy for obvious reasons.

AGAIN...AGAIN...you can and should have both hunting and eco. The work well together based on geographic location

Very good article on pros/cons

When have I said they shouldn’t be hunting safari’s?  If you actually read what I’ve said over and over I have actually said the same. Every animal that needs to be culled should be done as a hunt. I originally said that I myself would not want to do it. The OP took shots at a few things I’ve said so that set me on the coarse to prove I was right. Then he showed a great link that instead of arguing against what I said, it strengthened it.  Now for what I have ACTUALLY been arguing for since is that in a better managed plan the need for culling would possibly drop, the elephant  population would rise over a greater area and stabilize.  The OP’s link is what I’m basing this on. Link the different parks allowing them to be able to roam between them. Hypothetically this could be done partially through land leases from locals by resort corporations which in turn expands the areas where revenue is generated and would promote job growth in those communities. If the OP hadn’t tried to shut everyone done and then your and others “Disney” comments was pure bs. While I’ll agree that the hunting revenue generated is important let’s not act like it’s the end all/be all.  As I’ve also said, a better managed population would grow. While I’ve said this would possibly decrease the actual need for culling, I don’t believe I’ve said that I said they needed to be hunted less. A larger more stable population would allow for even more hunting, probably hundreds more per year than what is currently legally allowed.  Aside from SA, you’ve got a declining population in most of the region with the one report claiming losing 30K/year. With an animal that takes that long to sexually mature, then stays with that calf for years before breeding again will not sustain with the amount of poaching going in.

***Your articles linked were very good but only promote what I’ve been saying in my opinion. As far as the 80/20 split, from what I’ve seen it’s more like hunting generates closer to 1/60th- just using quick math 400+M to just over 29B.

You haven't and I'm not against what you're saying.  

Disney comments are based on it being a "ride".  It's an attraction that brings people from a city to a driving zoo for photos.  Eco Safaris also count ALL the  revenue from the Hotel and bar to the t-shirt sales on the bus.  There is always going to be more zoo people than shoot people.  They are always going to spend more money.  There are all inclusive 'rich people' vacation spots AND there are drive through safari zoos.

There are two main issues with eco safaris.  First they are limited to where they are at so those animals are protected to the extent that they can keep poachers off that property.  Second the money doesn't trickle down as well as hunting does in more remote places.  The Government takes a large portion of the funds for the State Run Parks.  Neither issue makes them bad, but they aren't perfect either.

The Kruger has a estimated population of 400K in Elephants.  It's about 90K over what they should have.  Instead of hunting them they let the poachers from Zimbabwe take their toll on the northern boarder.

Magically we get money to stop poaching and money to eco travel.  They stop evil hunting.  All sides get an argument to dig their heals into the ground.  The asian get their horn.  Its a win all around. The money flows.


I am scheduled on my next hunt is SA in June of 2022.  I have the opportunity to go on a Eco Safari for a day if I choose to.  I also can wing shoot, fish and visit local villages if I want as well.  They will cater to everything for $$$$.  But what I can't do is hunt an Elephant.  The 3 tags for this concession are already sold.  That and I can't afford, nor want to spend, nor want to hunt elephant.  But there are 3 people already all in so some poor villager is going to eat well come mid June 2020.