Example: I contacted the African Elephant Specialist Group because I wanted to copy details about elephants from their website. All they needed to do was say "yes".
Of course I pointed out that I will mention where this information is from and that I will link to their website, too.

Instead, I received a "no". I was told, if I wish to refer to any information on their website, I should just put a link to their website but not copy the information.

On their website it says everywhere that they purly depend on donations and that because the donations are few, they can not do as much research as they would like to.

Sorry, but with such a contraproductive attitude, they will never get more money.

To me it seems as if they want to do their own little thing, hidden from the public but paid by the public.

I admit, it must be great to be paid to go on endless safaris and calling your observations "research".

Bwanamich:

"Hunting money was directly responsible for the recovery of at least three rare species in South Africa — the bontebok, Damaliscus dorcas, black wildebeest, Connochaetes gnu, and Cape mountain zebra, Equus zebra — and assisted the recovery of southern white rhino numbers."

The only problem I have with this article is that most hunters I know would go after those rare species just because of their rarity. They would ask guides to turn the other way and then shoot anyway. They always want to get the biggest, healthiest or rarest kill. We all know hunters who kill more than they are alloted or kill an animal out of season, jack animals illegally at night, and on and on.

If a species were close to extinction and a hunter unknowingly killed the last buck, that would end the species. How then does this conserve?

Jan,
You can't throw all hunters in the same basket! Even amongst people that hunt there are differences. Someone you describe above is not a hunter; he/she is a "shooter" or a "killer". When we refer to the hunting industry we refer to the "regulated hunting" industry - not the bad apples! If someone shoots an animal illegally, out of season, over-shoots their quota, etc then they are no longer "hunters" but "poachers". There is a clear distinction and that needs to be recognised during discussions.

As for the rare species, if it is offered as a huntable species, then we must understand that it has been deemed through research and monitoring that the taking of that particular animal (or groups of) will have no effect on the overall survival of the species. There is not a single situation today whereby an "endangered" animal - on the brink of extinction as you describe - is offered to hunters. It just doesn't happen this way. Even the black rhino which is threatened, has an annual quota (5) under very strict circumstances. Individual animals have been identified by various regulating bodies as being suitable to be offered for hunting purposes. Now one can argue whether or not that is a true hunt but that is another discussion altogether. The individuals that have been identified are all old bulls that are past their prime, no longer breeding and that are themselves "killing" other younger bulls that are more valuable in terms of breeding and hence conservation. These bulls would eventually die of old age and not without suffering and are "worthless" other than a sentimental value. So a decision was taken to allow hunters who are prepared to pay up to $150,000 for each, of which a substantial amount is re-invested in rhino herd management and conservation, to hunt them.

How does hunting allow animal herds to recover? In very simple terms, hunters protect their hunting areas thorugh anti-poaching efforts as well as habitat protection. The annual offtake quota's for each specie in the area is set well below the maximum allowable quota and take into consideration natural die-off rate as well as reproduction rate so that the total birth rate is always higher. while you are shooting a certain quantity of animals, you are being conservative in the numbers and allowing the herds to grow.
- Edited by bwanamich on 20.02.2007, 11:43 -

I have to agree with Jan - I have met plenty of hunters who belong to so called ethical hunting orgs and have stated the ethics/ideals of hunting at first on meeting them. A couple of glasses of wine or whatever over the dinner table they generally hang themselves by telling stories that are appalling and certainly not ethical. Example : taking a group out to hunt 1 x male lion...which is found and shot then coming across a 'better' looking male, nicer mane etc and dumping the other in the bush as they only have a licence for one. This happens ALL the time I am told - there is no way to police on the actual hunt, words out of an ethical PH...not mine.

I do not consider ANY difference between a hunter and a 'shooter' - sorry, its like saying there is a difference between a prostitute and a call-girl.

an old animal is "worthless" has only got some kind of "sentimental value".............
all hunters should undergo the same evaluation process and freed to hunt?
all these hunters don''t do hunting for conservation. they all hunt in order to support their lacking selfesteem or build up their selfconfidence.
i won't argue with a hunter.
i just want to know what kind of feeling it is when one pulls the trigger in order to extinguish a life? i assume it must be a kind of orgasm - or what? i'd really like to learn about their feelings.....
and who the hell gave humans the right to decide which animals has got which value? are we going to decide which human has got which value? whites are more worth than blacks or chines or indians?
have they all forgotten that we are lend this world for our time being on that planet. no one has got the right to take lives for what ever reason except for feeding a family.
how can a native comprehend that when he shots an antelope for feeding his family is considered poaching and on the other hand a rich european or american can shot a buffalo because he pays for it and that is called "conservation"?