Namibia to issue permits to shoot endangered bull elephants

The Telegraph ^ | 8/22/2008 | Paul Eccleston

[bruinbirdman]

A decision to allow the trophy-hunting of endangered elephants in Namibia has angered conservation groups.

Trophy permits have been issued for the killing of six bull elephants by the government's Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET).

Conservationists estimate there are about 400 elephants
in the Kunene region

It will allow any big game hunter willing to pay about $40,000 the right to hunt and shoot a bull elephant in Namibia's north-west desert region.

But opponents say killing bull elephants in an already endangered population is unsustainable and risks pushing the desert elephant towards extinction.

The elephants, who spend their lives wandering the arid wastes of the Kunene region in search of food and water, were decimated by hunting and poaching in the 1980s and reached a low point of only 52 individuals.

But conservation policies and protection measures adopted by the Namibian government have seen numbers recover to somewhere between 240-400.

But breeding success is very low with a calf mortality rate as high as 80 per cent and many of the cows also die soon after giving birth.

[bruinbirdman]

[freeplancer]

Freaking Brits. Anyone who knows anything about Africa knows that once you place a value on the wildlife, common people stop poaching and protect the resource. AND, Elephants grow in number. It is a simple formula that antis deny and the “locals” are obviously not doing a good enough job at managing the wildlife. Good for the Elephants

[valkyry1]

Fantasy Gun Porn?

[shield]

There appears to be a lot of elephants world-wide endanger of extinction.

[elmer fudd]

I’d guess that $240,000 could probably fund a lot of conservation and anti-poaching work in that country, but I wouldn’t want to bet any money on that happening. More likely it will be spent on gold plumbing fixtures in some presidential palace.

[Hugin]

Quitr right. As the article states, “breeding success is very low with a calf mortality rate as high as 80 per cent and many of the cows also die soon after giving birth”. That's because the area is a desert that can't support that many animals! So the animals being shot makes room for others that would otherwise starve. That's how regulated hunting works, and it's far preferable to the natural cycle of over-breeding/starvation/underpopulation/over-breeding.

[freeplancer]

Even if you are correct, the person who resides in that palace will have any poachers killed and everyone else will be afraid of poaching. Either way it works. The only way to motivate poor people and thugs is with money.

[freeplancer]

What? I don’t understand what you meant by:

“There appears to be a lot of elephants world-wide endanger of extinction”

Asian Elephants and African Elephants are two different animals

[girlangler]

“. . .angered conservation groups.”

Well that would take some doing. What conservation groups? Bet I can guess, the ones that conserve nothing but their bank accounts/salaries?

You want to know which “conservation groups” are protecting them?

BIG GAME hunters, that ones that are financing their habitat on refuges. The ones paying for the studies about habitat fragmentation and relocation.

It’s not the hungry Nambians, I can tell you that much. And it’s not the ones that use cute elephants for fundraising appeals.

We need to find out which “conservation” groups are protesting, and send them a few elephants, or the bill for their protection.

The Nambian WL agencies wouldn’t be issuing hunting permits in this area, if the efforts and money from the “real” conservationists weren’t working out well.

[icwhatudo]

"He warned that killing bull elephants would seriously damage elephants groups because they played an important social role in keeping adolescent bulls in check as well as passing on ecological intelligence.

"Eradicating the bulls could lead to a social breakdown and a massive loss of knowledge. This knowledge is needed to alleviate the pressure on resources," he said.

"Misuse of resources will only lead to..."

Bull elephants teach the young ones to recycle? Sigh.

They took 52 and turned it into 250. Sounds like they know what they are doing. Interesting that its the "desert" ones in danger with no mention that the 490,000 other African Elephants have been increasing in number since 1990.

[shield]

I understand that. I saw something recently regarding mountain elephants and they could only find 4 today. There habitat was almost gone and so are they.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Quitr right. As the article states, “breeding success is very low with a calf mortality rate as high as 80 per cent and many of the cows also die soon after giving birth”. That's because the area is a desert that can't support that many animals! So the animals being shot makes room for others that would otherwise starve. That's how regulated hunting works, and it's far preferable to the natural cycle of over-breeding/starvation/underpopulation/over-breeding.

How do hunters know which animal is sick, injured, or old? Natural preadators pick out the weak because the easier kill is in its interest. Humans, I suspect will go for the biggest tusks, probably a fit animal. There is no more risk for hunters in shooting the fittest animal. I believe nature is a much better conservator than humans.

[Lurker]

There is no more risk for hunters in shooting the fittest animal.

Are you nuts?

A full grown Bull Elephant like this weighs a couple of tons. They can be aggressive and extremely dangerous animals. The vital area on a full grown elephant is about the size of a basketball.

And that area is protected by a very, very thick hide. If a hunter doesn't precisely place his shot, and that shot must be taken very close to the animal considering the animals small vitals, he or she is very likely to be stomped to death by the wounded animal.

An elephant can run at almost 20 miles an hours, far faster than a man.

While not the most dangerous animal on the African continent, it's certainly in the top ten. And anyone thinking there's no risk to the hunter is an idiot.

L

[Hugin]

How do hunters know which animal is sick, injured, or old?

That doesn't matter. The point is every habitat has a carrying capacity for the number of animals it can support. Without predators (elephants have no predators, BTW) animals will breed until they exceed that capacity. The excess animals will die of disease, thirst or starvation, often doing damage to the environment by overgrazing in the process, reducing the carrying capacity further. The population plummets, and slowly begins recovering. What is important as far as regulated hunting is concerned, is not which animals are taken*, but the total numbers. Every animal taken by a hunter represents an animal that won't die a slow and painful death from starvation, regardless of whether it is the same individual animal. That's how regulated hunting works. You can see how successful it has been maintaining and expanding game animal populations in the USA and elsewhere (including parts of Africa).

*There is one difference as to which animals are taken. In places where trophy males are hunted exclusively, the effect is to increase the population, since there are more breeding females. So, for example, in areas where there is an overpopulation of deer, Fish and Game departments will sometimes require that hunters fill a doe tag before issuing a buck tag.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

If a hunter doesn't precisely place his shot, and that shot must be taken very close to the animal considering the animals small vitals, he or she is very likely to be stomped to death by the wounded animal.

Call me nuts?

We train snipers to make head shots at a half mile. At closer range with modern rifles only the incompetent shooter is going to miss the "basketball size target". OK, so the incompetent are at risk. Then let natural selection work on the shooter.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

How do hunters know which animal is sick, injured, or old?...

That doesn't matter.

...There is one difference as to which animals are taken. In places where trophy males are hunted exclusively, the effect is to increase the population, since there are more breeding females...

It doesn't matter? If the beasts were left to natural selection, with or without predators, the fittest are most likely to survive predation or starvation. They strengthen the gene pool. Humans are picky about their prey. They like to mount the most robust on their walls. They tend to weaken the gene pool. Increasing the number of weakened individuals under a managed scheme goes against nature.

[Lurker]

We train snipers to make head shots at a half mile.

Correct. They're trained to hit a target roughly as dense as a cantaloupe with a high velocity, relatively small caliber bullet.

Try that with an elephant and even if you do hit the target area, that round isn't going to penetrate sufficiently to do more than piss the elephant off.

Now try hitting that basket ball with a much larger caliber bullet, say .450 Nitro Express at a distance of 50 or 75 yards over iron sights.

You've also got to remember that the basketball in question is about 2 feet or so inside the target animal. It's also protected by some very, very tough hide, massive bony structures, and lots and lots of muscle.

This isn't long range precision shooting. This is up close and personal with an animal that has a very real chance of killing you even if you do place your shot perfectly. Even a heart shot won't instantly kill an elephant.

I was an Expert rifleman in the Marine Corps. While I can still hit something the size of a basketball at hundreds of yards quite reliably with a 5.56mm or .30 caliber rifle, there's no way on God's green earth I do do that with an African Plains rifle in a caliber appropriate for elephant.

The ballistics of those cartridges are all wrong for distance shooting.

[HenpeckedCon]

I wish I could afford to go to Africa, but I can't. I'll have to stick to clubbing baby seals I guess.